The COST report on smart meters as usual suggested more research is needed to decide effect of smart meters used to tell the electricity or gas company how much of these energy each household uses. Havas Wants more research too But people need to have the knowledge of the dangers already known. People need the right to say `no´ to placing smart meters in their home space, or where they will pollute their home, school, institutional space. This is Professor Magda Havas Comment to the COST Report. Comments and disagreeing statements and comments were denied a place in the report.
EASY READING. If it is too long look at her webpage and find her You Tube presentation
Havas, Oct 12, 2010 Smart Meters CCST 1
Havas Submission to CCST “Report on Smart Meters”.
For those interested, below is my invited submission to CCST as part of a Technical Response
Team.
Date: October 12, 2010
From: Magda Havas, BSc, PhD
To: CCST
Submission on Smart Meters.
Item 1. Whether FCC standards for Smart Meters are sufficiently protective of public health
taking into account current exposure levels to radiofrequency and electromagnetic fields.
In my opinion, the FCC standard for Smart Meters is not sufficient to protect public health. This
is based on the following facts:
1.1 The thermal vs. non-thermal debate is largely a
red herring that has been perpetuated for decades and has influenced the type of
research done in the United States. The FCC standard is based on a thermal effect. It
was originally based on the amount of radiation that would heat an adult male in the
US military exposed to radar. While the heating effect is not disputed, biological
effects, some of which have adverse health consequences, occur well below the
thermal guideline (Inglis 1970). As a consequence various countries in the world are
opting for a “biologically” based guideline rather than a “thermal” guideline, which
takes into account not only adult males in peak physical conditions but children,
pregnant women, the elderly, and those who have developed electrohypersensitivity
(EHS). I will return to the concept of EHS later.
1.2 Guidelines in Russia, Switzerland, Poland, and China are well below the FCC
standard (i.e. 10 vs. 1000 microW/cm2 or 1% of FCC guidelines). Some military and
government insiders tried to get U.S. guidelines reduced decades ago but were not
successful (Pollack and Healer 1967, Dodge 1969). Steneck et al. (1980) provides an
excellent account of how the U.S. standards were established for radio frequency
radiation.
1.3 Our exposure to radio frequency radiation (RFR) is increasing exponentially as
we design more equipment that relies on higher frequencies in the electromagnetic
spectrum. Prior to World War II, this type of radiation was negligible. Today we have
radar (military, marine, aviation, and weather), we have cell phone antennas, radio and
TV broadcast antennas, and a growing number of WiFi hotspots, citywide WiFi and
Wi-Max antennas. Inside buildings we have cordless phones, many of which emit
microwave radiation even when they are not being used; wireless alarm systems;
wireless baby monitors, wireless computers, iPads, and Smart Phones that can connect
to wireless internet or WiFi. More children are playing wireless video games than
ever before and radio frequency identification devices (RFID) are placed into
Havas, Oct 12, 2010 Smart Meters CCST 2
merchandise to provide information to the manufacturer about consumer habits. The
“smart meter” is just another source of exposure that will be placed on every home and
in every apartment. Smart meters are being used to monitor use of electricity, gas and
water. As part of this system, appliances are being designed to communicate directly
with smart meters, all in a wireless mode, which will ultimately increase levels of
radiation in the home.
1.4 I work with people who have become electrically hypersensitive (EHS) and I have
received emails and phone calls from those who have had smart meters placed on their
homes. They complain of ill health and many are unable to use the room closest to the
smart meter. These individuals have no place to “hide” from the growing levels of
electrosmog especially in densely populated urban centers. Sickness contributes to
time off work and away from school, growing medical costs and a general poorer
quality of life. Children are particularly vulnerable as are pregnant women and those
with compromised immune systems. The presence of metal implants in the body
(such as metal pins in bones) may concentrate the absorption of radiation at the
location of implantation, inducing thermal effects from lower power densities than
would ordinarily cause such harm (Massey 1979). Some implants, such as pace
makers and deep brain stimulators for Parkinson’s disease, may malfunction and this
can be fatal. In Switzerland about 5% of the population has EHS. If the same fraction
of the population has EHS in the US that would come to a staggering 15 million
people!
The symptoms following exposure to radio frequency radiation were labeled
radiowave sickness and were first reported for those occupationally exposed in the
former Soviet Union. These same symptoms are now referred to as
electrohypersensitivity (EHS) and are experienced by a growing fraction of the
population. They include . . .
“. . . headache, eyestrain and tearing, fatigue and weakness, vertigo, sleeplessness at
night and drowsiness during the day, moodiness, irritability, hypochondria, paranoia,
either nervous tension or mental depression and memory impairment. After longer
periods of exposure, additional complaints may include sluggishness, inability to make
decisions, loss of hair, pain in muscles and in the heart region, breathlessness, sexual
problems and even a decrease in lactation in nursing mothers. Clinically observed effects
in persons voicing these complaints include trembling of the eyelids, fingers and tongue,
increased perspiration of the extremities, [and] rashes . . .” (Massey, 1979).
1.5 In addition to sensitive people, Switzerland also identifies Places of Sensitive Use
(German acronym is OMEN). These places include: living rooms; classrooms and
kindergartens; hospitals and nursing homes; permanent jobs (where people spend
more than 2.5 days per week); and playgrounds. For these OMEN sites, the Swiss
government recommends that greater precaution be taken for long-term exposure to
weak radiation. In these places, radiation from wireless microwave base stations (such
as cordless phones or WLAN/WiFi) may exceed radiation from nearby cell phone
base stations and hence these devices must generate emissions as low as possible. For
more information visit http://www.bag.admin.ch/themen/strahlung/00053/index.html?lang=en
Havas, Oct 12, 2010 Smart Meters CCST 3
Item 2. Whether additional technology specific standards are needed for Smart Meters and other
devices that are commonly found in and around homes, to ensure adequate protection from
adverse health effects.
2.1 Technology specific standards are definitely needed for Smart meters as well as
cordless phones, DECT baby monitors, wireless routers, and all of the other devices that
emit radio frequency radiation.
Massey, in a report published by Duke Law Journal in 1979, identifies nine variables
that need to be considered when determining the impact of microwave radiation. These
are “power density, intensity and relative phase of all field components, specific
frequency ranges, waveform characteristics, exposure regimes, specific occupations,
level of control over exposed populations, individual differences (age, sex, health,
specific predisposing factors) and presence of other environmental stressors.” The
current FCC guidelines do NOT take these into consideration.
2.2 We have evidence that pulsed microwave frequencies, that are generated by WiFi and
cordless phones are more harmful than continuous wave and yet this is not considered in
the FCC guidelines (Reno 1975).
The key microwave emitting devices in the home/office/school environment are:
Cordless phones (some are labeled DECT and others pulsed digital 2.4 GHz). These
radiate all the time even when no one is using them. They should be replaced by wired
phones or cordless phones currently available in Europe, which are “on-demand” phones
that radiate only when the handset is not in the cradle of the base station. These phones
are so dangerous that I recently submitted a Petition to the Auditor General of Canada to
have DECT phones banned (Havas 2008).
The DECT baby monitor also radiates all the time, as does the receiver that is often
carried on the Mother’s waist. Here we need a voice-activated baby monitor that is used
in Europe.
Wireless Internet (WiFi or WLan) is not as common in Europe as they are in North
America. There they prefer using wired service in the form of fiber optic and Ethernet
connections. Germany hotels ask that you bring an Ethernet cables with you, as they
don’t provide WiFi. The Swiss government is providing free fiber optics to schools
provided they don’t install wireless routers.
2.3 An additional point I would like to make relates to dirty electricity.
Wires can act like antennas and the radiation produced by radio frequency generating
devices can flow along and reradiate from wires both inside and outside the home. This
contributes to dirty electricity and localized radiation exposure. Dirty electricity has been
associated with cancers (Milham and Morgan 2008); health and behavior problems in
schools (Havas and Olstad 2008); and both diabetes and multiple sclerosis (Havas 2006).
From a human health perspective and to protect sensitive electronic equipment it is
Havas, Oct 12, 2010 Smart Meters CCST 4
important to maintain good power quality and to prevent radiation from smart meters
flowing along wires.
In conclusion, I have great concern regarding the current levels of microwave radiation in
North America. Instead of promoting wireless technology, we should be promoting wired
technology and reserving wireless for situations where wired in not possible (while one is
traveling for example). Shortly after X-rays were discovered, they were used in shoe stores to
determine shoe-size for young children. Fortunately, we recognized that X-rays were harmful
and we restricted their use to essential medical diagnoses. We need to recognize that microwaves
are also harmful and we cannot use this technology in a frivolous manner. With more frequencies
being used, with the levels of radiation increasing, and with so little research on the long-term,
low-level effects of this technology we are creating a potential time bomb. If smart meters are
placed on every home, they will contribute significantly to our exposure and this is both unwise
and unsafe.
References
Dodge, CH. 1969. Clinical and Hygienic Aspects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields: A
Review of the Soviet and Eastern European Literature. Biological Effects and Health
Implications of Microwave Radiation, Symposium Proceedings, Richmond, Virginia, September
17-19, 1969 (BRH/DBE 70-2) (PB 193 898). http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wpcontent/
uploads/2010/08/Dodge_1969.pdf
Havas, M 2006. Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Biological effects of dirty electricity with
emphasis on diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 25: 259-
268. http://www.electricalpollution.com/documents/Havas2006.pdf
Havas, M 2008. Request that first generation DECT Phones be Banned in Canada, Environment
Petition, Auditor General of Canada, 15 pp. http://www.oagbvg.
gc.ca/internet/English/pet_253_e_31629.html
Havas, M and A Olstad. 2008. Power quality affects teacher wellbeing and student behavior in
three Minnesota Schools. Science of the Total Environment, Volume 402, Issues 2-3, 1
September 2008, pp. 157-162.
http://www.electricalpollution.com/documents/08_Havas&Olstad_schools-1.pdf
Inglis, L.P. 1970. Why the double standard? – A critical review of Russian work on hazards of
microwave radiation. IEEE International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, July 14-
16. 1970. http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2010/08/Inglis.pdf
Massey, KA. 1979. The Challenge of Nonionizing Radiation: A Proposal for Legislation. Duke
Law Journal, Volume 1979, No. 1. 86 pp. http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wpcontent/
uploads/2010/10/Massey-1979.pdf
Milham, S and LL Morgan. 2008. A New Electromagnetic Exposure Metric: High Frequency
Voltage Transients Associated With Increased Cancer Incidence in Teachers in a California
School. Amer. J. Ind. Med. 8 pp. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajim.20598/abstract
Havas, Oct 12, 2010 Smart Meters CCST 5
Pollack, H. and J. Healer. 1967. Review of the Information on Hazards to Personnel from High-
Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation. Institute for Defense Analyses, Research and Engineering
Support Division. Internal Note N-451, IDA/HQ 67-6211, Series B, copy 5 of 15, 15
pages.http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2010/07/Pollack_19671.pdf
Reno, VR. 1975. Some considerations concerning the use of magnetron generators in microwave
biological research. Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Pensacola, Florida.
Approved for Public release. Distribution unlimited. 11 pp.
http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2010/09/Reno_Pulsed_Waves.pdf
Steneck, NH, HJ Cook, AJ Vander and GL Kane. 1980. The Origins of U.S. Safety Standards for
Microwave Radiation. Science, Vol. 208, 13 June 1980.
http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2010/06/steneck_science_1980.pdf
Chronology:
On July 30, 2010, California State Assembly Member Jared Huffman (San Rafael) asked the
California Council on Science and Technology (CCST) to provide an assessment of the safety of
Smart Meters.
On August 16, 2010, CCST agreed to compile and assess the evidence available to address the
following two issues:
1. Whether FCC standards for Smart Meters are sufficiently protective of public health taking
into account current exposure levels to radiofrequency and electromagnetic fields.
2. Whether additional technology specific standards are needed for Smart Meters and other
devices that are commonly found in and around homes, to ensure adequate protection from
adverse health effects.
On October 4, 2010, I was invited to be part of a Technical Response Team and, as part of that
team, I was asked to provide a written response to two key concerns mentioned above.
On October 12, 2010, I submitted my report to CCST.
On December 13, 2010, I was informed that CCST was not appending any documents to their
report, nor were they making these documents available to others, but they were recognizing
those who contributed.
On January 11, 2011, CCST released their report “Health Impacts of Radio Frequency from
Smart Meters” on their website: http://www.ccst.us/news/2011/20110111smart.php. CCST is
receiving public comments until January 31, 2011.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Reuters
Laptop use on laps might reduce sperm quality: report
Mon Nov 08 03:34:19 UTC 2010
NEW YORK (Reuters Life!) - Using a laptop computer as the name suggests may not be good for male reproductive health, according to a study.
And there is little that can be done about it, aside from using the laptop on a desk, said Yelim Sheynkin, a urologist at the State University of New York at Stony Brook who led the study published in Fertility and Sterility.
In the study, thermometers were used to measure the temperature of the scrotums of 29 young men balancing a laptop on their knees. Even with a lap pad under the computer, the men's scrotums overheated quickly.
"Millions and millions of men are using laptops now, especially those in the reproductive age range," said Sheynkin.
"Within 10 or 15 minutes their scrotal temperature is already above what we consider safe, but they don't feel it."
According to the American Urological Association, nearly one in six couples in the United States have trouble conceiving. About half the time this is due to male infertility.
Under normal circumstances, the position of the testicles outside the body keeps them a few degrees cooler than the inside of the body, which is necessary for sperm production.
No studies have yet researched how laptops affect male fertility and there is no strong evidence that it would, Sheynkin added. But earlier research has showed that warming the scrotum even more than one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) is enough to damage sperm.
Though both general health and lifestyle factors such as nutrition and drug use can affect reproductive health, tight jeans and briefs are generally not considered a risk factor since people are moving around.
Holding a laptop on the knees, though, requires keeping the legs still and closed. After one hour in this position, the researchers found that the men's testicle temperature had risen by up to 2.5 C.
A lap pad kept the computer cool and meant that less heat was transmitted to the skin, but Sheynkin warned it didn't do much to cool the testicles and might give a false sense of security.
"I wouldn't say that if someone starts to use laptops they will become infertile," Sheynkin told Reuters Health, though he warned that frequent use might contribute to reproductive problems because "the scrotum doesn't have time to cool down."
When the men sat with their legs spread wide -- made possible only by placing the computer on a large lap pad -- they could keep their testicles cooler. But it still took less than 30 minutes before they began overheating.
"No matter what you do, even with the legs spread wide apart, the temperature is still going to be higher than what we call safe," said Sheynkin.
Laptop use on laps might reduce sperm quality: report
Mon Nov 08 03:34:19 UTC 2010
NEW YORK (Reuters Life!) - Using a laptop computer as the name suggests may not be good for male reproductive health, according to a study.
And there is little that can be done about it, aside from using the laptop on a desk, said Yelim Sheynkin, a urologist at the State University of New York at Stony Brook who led the study published in Fertility and Sterility.
In the study, thermometers were used to measure the temperature of the scrotums of 29 young men balancing a laptop on their knees. Even with a lap pad under the computer, the men's scrotums overheated quickly.
"Millions and millions of men are using laptops now, especially those in the reproductive age range," said Sheynkin.
"Within 10 or 15 minutes their scrotal temperature is already above what we consider safe, but they don't feel it."
According to the American Urological Association, nearly one in six couples in the United States have trouble conceiving. About half the time this is due to male infertility.
Under normal circumstances, the position of the testicles outside the body keeps them a few degrees cooler than the inside of the body, which is necessary for sperm production.
No studies have yet researched how laptops affect male fertility and there is no strong evidence that it would, Sheynkin added. But earlier research has showed that warming the scrotum even more than one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) is enough to damage sperm.
Though both general health and lifestyle factors such as nutrition and drug use can affect reproductive health, tight jeans and briefs are generally not considered a risk factor since people are moving around.
Holding a laptop on the knees, though, requires keeping the legs still and closed. After one hour in this position, the researchers found that the men's testicle temperature had risen by up to 2.5 C.
A lap pad kept the computer cool and meant that less heat was transmitted to the skin, but Sheynkin warned it didn't do much to cool the testicles and might give a false sense of security.
"I wouldn't say that if someone starts to use laptops they will become infertile," Sheynkin told Reuters Health, though he warned that frequent use might contribute to reproductive problems because "the scrotum doesn't have time to cool down."
When the men sat with their legs spread wide -- made possible only by placing the computer on a large lap pad -- they could keep their testicles cooler. But it still took less than 30 minutes before they began overheating.
"No matter what you do, even with the legs spread wide apart, the temperature is still going to be higher than what we call safe," said Sheynkin.
Monday, September 27, 2010
HOW CAN THE HEALTH AUTHORITIES BE SO BLIND
Wifi in Schools and the Dangers of non-ionizing radiation: crazed anti-science parents, or a Cold War failure of Normal Science?
September 9, 2010 by northernsong
http://northernsong.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/wifi-in-schools-and-the-dangers-of-non-ionizing-radiation-crazed-anti-science-parents-or-a-cold-war-failure-of-normal-science/
The CBC has run stories on parents groups who are concerned about the possible health effects of WIFI in elementary schools. Individual reports of increased heart rate and headaches, from parents and from the children themselves, are are concerning – but intuitively one wishes to trust Health Canada who dismiss the complaints as subjective. The peer reviewed literature, according to Health Canada, overwhelmingly confirms that the thermal effects of WIFI are negligible, and that no causal relation has been found between those thermal effects and any health problems.
The fact that scientists remain opposed to a scientific consensus is not a reason to distrust the consensus - if this were true, the presence of a single reputable climate denier in the peer reviewed literature would be a reason to refrain from belief in global warming. However, there are two reasons why the wifi case is different from climate denial. First: the precautionary principle runs in the opposite direction – whereas a slight doubt that human Co2 output will threaten the survival of the species is not a good reason to take action to stop Co2 emissions, a significant doubt that wifi causes health problems in children is not a good reason to take cheap and easy action to limit children’s exposure to wifi. Second, there is a structural bias behind Health Canada’s appraisal of the research into the effects of small levels of microwave radiation. This surprising claim comes from a study by Leo P. Inglis,surveyed here by Magda Havas, surveying the literature on microwave radiation’s health effects:
“In the U.S., the thermal effects are generally believed to be the only ones of significance; other contentions are usually dismissed as lacking a provable basis. In the USSR, non-thermal effects are considered the most significant and are overwhelmingly the ones most studied.”
This indicates a structural difference between scientific assumptions in US and USSR have swayed the directions of research, determined which studies got funding, what students took interest in, etc… This claim undercuts Health Canada’s statements which concern only the thermal effects of microwave radiation – if non thermal effects exist, Health Canada is not even looking for them.
Significant differences in the direction of scientific research between closed off communities are expected by constructivists like Kuhn, who believes that the basic assumptions of a scientific community are determined by the appearance of fruitfulness in future research rather than through normal scientific inquiry itself. In the past I have taken interest in Scientific research done under the Nazi regime, and research done in secrecy for the US military during the cold war. Such research programs demonstrate the power of dollars over freedom – how a research program, even when the researchers are cut off from their peers – can make tremendous strides if given a set of goals and unlimited resources. This gulf between Soviet and American research is an example of the opposite, and much less controversial hypothesis: that a lack of democracy is harmful for scientific research. The lack of proper collaboration between American and Soviet researchers into the effects of microwave radiation allowed Soviet research to ignore the importance of thermal effects, whereas the converse allowed US scientists and regulators to ignore the importance of non-thermal effects.
So, while the Bio-Initiative report is rejected by Health Canada as not being in conformity with the scientific consensus, it might not be rejected by Health Moscow. For example, whereas in 2008 and 2009 Health Canada continued to hold that there was no evidence that cell phone use could have any health effects, the Russian Naitonal Committee on non-ionizing ratiation protection made this statement about risks posed to children’s health by cell phone radiation (similar to WIFI, but much stronger)
Potential risk for the children’s health is very high:
─ the absorption of the electromagnetic energy in a child’s head is considerably higher than that in
the head of an adult (children’s brain has higher conductivity, smaller size, thin skull bones,
smaller distance from the antenna etc.);
─ children’s organism has more sensitivity to the EMF, than the adult’s;
─ children’s brain has higher sensitivity to the accumulation of the adverse effects under
conditions of chronic exposure to the EMF;
─ EMF affects the formation of the process of the higher nervous activity;
─ today’s children will spend essentially longer time using mobile phones, than today’s adults will.
Health Canada continues to hold that the risks from cell phone use do not include any of the risks advised by Russian, British, German, Belgian, Israeli, and Indian health agencies.
The basic question boils down to this: is it up to skeptics to prove that electronic devices are unsafe, or is it up to corporations trying to expand their markets by creating new needs to prove they are safe? If you ask Health Canada – the onus is on scientists to prove that a risk can be statistically proven, i.e. people must already have been hurt by the product. In other words – should the precautionary principle be applied to new electronic devices as it is to new medicine?
_____
September 9, 2010 by northernsong
http://northernsong.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/wifi-in-schools-and-the-dangers-of-non-ionizing-radiation-crazed-anti-science-parents-or-a-cold-war-failure-of-normal-science/
The CBC has run stories on parents groups who are concerned about the possible health effects of WIFI in elementary schools. Individual reports of increased heart rate and headaches, from parents and from the children themselves, are are concerning – but intuitively one wishes to trust Health Canada who dismiss the complaints as subjective. The peer reviewed literature, according to Health Canada, overwhelmingly confirms that the thermal effects of WIFI are negligible, and that no causal relation has been found between those thermal effects and any health problems.
The fact that scientists remain opposed to a scientific consensus is not a reason to distrust the consensus - if this were true, the presence of a single reputable climate denier in the peer reviewed literature would be a reason to refrain from belief in global warming. However, there are two reasons why the wifi case is different from climate denial. First: the precautionary principle runs in the opposite direction – whereas a slight doubt that human Co2 output will threaten the survival of the species is not a good reason to take action to stop Co2 emissions, a significant doubt that wifi causes health problems in children is not a good reason to take cheap and easy action to limit children’s exposure to wifi. Second, there is a structural bias behind Health Canada’s appraisal of the research into the effects of small levels of microwave radiation. This surprising claim comes from a study by Leo P. Inglis,surveyed here by Magda Havas, surveying the literature on microwave radiation’s health effects:
“In the U.S., the thermal effects are generally believed to be the only ones of significance; other contentions are usually dismissed as lacking a provable basis. In the USSR, non-thermal effects are considered the most significant and are overwhelmingly the ones most studied.”
This indicates a structural difference between scientific assumptions in US and USSR have swayed the directions of research, determined which studies got funding, what students took interest in, etc… This claim undercuts Health Canada’s statements which concern only the thermal effects of microwave radiation – if non thermal effects exist, Health Canada is not even looking for them.
Significant differences in the direction of scientific research between closed off communities are expected by constructivists like Kuhn, who believes that the basic assumptions of a scientific community are determined by the appearance of fruitfulness in future research rather than through normal scientific inquiry itself. In the past I have taken interest in Scientific research done under the Nazi regime, and research done in secrecy for the US military during the cold war. Such research programs demonstrate the power of dollars over freedom – how a research program, even when the researchers are cut off from their peers – can make tremendous strides if given a set of goals and unlimited resources. This gulf between Soviet and American research is an example of the opposite, and much less controversial hypothesis: that a lack of democracy is harmful for scientific research. The lack of proper collaboration between American and Soviet researchers into the effects of microwave radiation allowed Soviet research to ignore the importance of thermal effects, whereas the converse allowed US scientists and regulators to ignore the importance of non-thermal effects.
So, while the Bio-Initiative report is rejected by Health Canada as not being in conformity with the scientific consensus, it might not be rejected by Health Moscow. For example, whereas in 2008 and 2009 Health Canada continued to hold that there was no evidence that cell phone use could have any health effects, the Russian Naitonal Committee on non-ionizing ratiation protection made this statement about risks posed to children’s health by cell phone radiation (similar to WIFI, but much stronger)
Potential risk for the children’s health is very high:
─ the absorption of the electromagnetic energy in a child’s head is considerably higher than that in
the head of an adult (children’s brain has higher conductivity, smaller size, thin skull bones,
smaller distance from the antenna etc.);
─ children’s organism has more sensitivity to the EMF, than the adult’s;
─ children’s brain has higher sensitivity to the accumulation of the adverse effects under
conditions of chronic exposure to the EMF;
─ EMF affects the formation of the process of the higher nervous activity;
─ today’s children will spend essentially longer time using mobile phones, than today’s adults will.
Health Canada continues to hold that the risks from cell phone use do not include any of the risks advised by Russian, British, German, Belgian, Israeli, and Indian health agencies.
The basic question boils down to this: is it up to skeptics to prove that electronic devices are unsafe, or is it up to corporations trying to expand their markets by creating new needs to prove they are safe? If you ask Health Canada – the onus is on scientists to prove that a risk can be statistically proven, i.e. people must already have been hurt by the product. In other words – should the precautionary principle be applied to new electronic devices as it is to new medicine?
_____
Monday, April 26, 2010
Friday, April 9, 2010
Resolution on radiation protection
This resolution was ADOPTED on 3/23/2010 by the Board of Supervisors of the City and
County of San Francisco
FILE NO. 100043
1 [Potential Health Impacts of Wireless Facilities]
2
RESOLUTION NO.
/O;;L-/O
3 Resolution urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to study the health
4 impacts of wireless facilities and, if appropriate, to establish a safe level of exposure to
5 radio frequency radiation emissions; urging the Federal Communications Commission
6 to update its existing standards; and urging the California Congressional Delegation to
7 introduce federal legislation to repeal limitations on state and local authority imposed
8 by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
9
10 WHEREAS, The health and safety of our residents are fundamental concerns of the
11 San Francisco Board of Supervisors; and
12 WHEREAS, There continues to be considerable debate and uncertainty within the
13 scientific community as to the potential health effects to individuals, especially children, from
14 exposure to extremely low frequency electromagnetic and radio-frequency radiation, and
15 .WHEREAS, The desire of the wireless companies to market new wireless services has
16 since led to a proliferation of cellular facilities targeting residential areas and areas near
17 schools, and
18 WHEREAS, Section 704 of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 preempts
19 local communities from regulating the placement, construction, and modification of personal
20 wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio-frequency
21 emissions to the extent that the proposed facilities comply with the Federal Communications
22 Commission regulations concerning such emissions, and
23 WHEREAS, Based upon new and emerging scientific evidence there continues to be
24 considerable debate as to the adequacy of existing public exposure standards including those
25 promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission, and
Supervisor David Campos, John Avalos, Carmen chu, Eric Mar
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1
01/13/2010
1 WHEREAS, The scientific community and most health officials agree that more
2 research is needed to provide a definitive answer as to the effects of extremely low frequency
3 electromagnetic and radio-frequency radiation on our health and recommend the prudent
4 avoidance of equipment which generates non-ionizing radiation, and
5 WHEREAS, The full Parliament of the European Union has raised concerns about the
6 exposure of children and young people to electromagnetic fields and continuing uncertainties
7 about possible health risks; and therefore, adopted on April 2, 2009 a resolution encouraging
8 1) the establishment of setback criteria for wireless antennas, mobile phone masts and other
9 electromagnetic emitting devices to be set within a specific distance from schools and health
10 institutions, 2) stricter regulations and protections for residents and Consumers and 3) more
11 reliable information be made available about the effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields
12 to citizens in an effort to prevent a "proliferation of poorly positioned masts and transmitters,"
13 and
14 WHEREAS, The Federal Communications Commission is obliged to conduct periodic
15 reviews of current research and analysis of the health implications associated with radio-
16 frequency exposures in cooperation with industry, agency, and organizations responsible for
17 community health and safety to ensure exposure guidelines are appropriate and scientifically
18 valid, now, therefore, be it
19 RESOLVED, That the San Francisco Board of Supervisors urges the U.S.
20 Environmental Protection Agency to perform the appropriate research and experimentation to
21 determine the effects of non-ionizing radiation on the health of adults and children and, if
22 appropriate, establish a safe level of exposure, and be it
23 FURTHER RESOLVED, That the San Francisco Board of Supervisors urges the
24 Federal Communications Commission to pursue a comprehensive global analysis of best
25
Supervisor David Campos, John Avalos, Carmen Chu
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2
0111312010
1 practices and scientific evidence in order to update its existing standards and to adequately
2 measure the health impacts of wireless facilities, and be it
3 FURTHER RESOLVED, That the San Francisco Board of Supervisors encourages the
4 California Congressional delegation to introduce federal legislation to repeal limitations on
5 state and local authority imposed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that infringe upon
6 the authority of local governments to regulate the placement, construction and modification of
7 telecommunications towers and other personal wireless services facilities on the basis of the
8 health and environmental effects of these facilities, and be it
9 FURTHER RESOLVED, That the San Francisco Board of Supervisors hereby directs
10 the Clerk of the Board to send a copy of this resolution to the offices of Senator Barbara
11 Boxer, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Congresswoman Jackie Speier, the
12 Federal Communications Commission, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Supervisor David Campos, John Avalos, Carmen Chu
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 3
01/13/2010
City and County of San Francisco
Tails
Resolution
City Hall
J Dr. CarltonB. GoodlettPlace
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
File Number: 100043 Date Passed: March 23, 2010
Resolution urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to study the health impacts of wireless
facilities and, if appropriate, to establish a safe level of exposure to radiofrequency radiation emissions;
urging the Federal Communications Commission to update its existing standards; and urging the
California Congressional Delegation to introduce federal legislation to repeal limitations on state and
local authority imposed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
March 23, 2010 Board of Supervisors - ADOPTED
Ayes: 10 - Avalos, Campos, Chiu, Chu, Daly, Dufty, Elsbernd, Mar, Maxwell and
Mirkarimi
Excused: 1 - Alioto-Pier
File No.1 00043 I hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was ADOPTED on 3/23/2010 by
the Board of Supervisors of the City and
County of San Francisco.
~...g~~
Angela Calvillo
Clerk of the Board
Mayor Gavin Newsom
City ami County ofSalt Francisco Page4 Printed at 9:23 am 011 3/24/10
County of San Francisco
FILE NO. 100043
1 [Potential Health Impacts of Wireless Facilities]
2
RESOLUTION NO.
/O;;L-/O
3 Resolution urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to study the health
4 impacts of wireless facilities and, if appropriate, to establish a safe level of exposure to
5 radio frequency radiation emissions; urging the Federal Communications Commission
6 to update its existing standards; and urging the California Congressional Delegation to
7 introduce federal legislation to repeal limitations on state and local authority imposed
8 by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
9
10 WHEREAS, The health and safety of our residents are fundamental concerns of the
11 San Francisco Board of Supervisors; and
12 WHEREAS, There continues to be considerable debate and uncertainty within the
13 scientific community as to the potential health effects to individuals, especially children, from
14 exposure to extremely low frequency electromagnetic and radio-frequency radiation, and
15 .WHEREAS, The desire of the wireless companies to market new wireless services has
16 since led to a proliferation of cellular facilities targeting residential areas and areas near
17 schools, and
18 WHEREAS, Section 704 of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 preempts
19 local communities from regulating the placement, construction, and modification of personal
20 wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio-frequency
21 emissions to the extent that the proposed facilities comply with the Federal Communications
22 Commission regulations concerning such emissions, and
23 WHEREAS, Based upon new and emerging scientific evidence there continues to be
24 considerable debate as to the adequacy of existing public exposure standards including those
25 promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission, and
Supervisor David Campos, John Avalos, Carmen chu, Eric Mar
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1
01/13/2010
1 WHEREAS, The scientific community and most health officials agree that more
2 research is needed to provide a definitive answer as to the effects of extremely low frequency
3 electromagnetic and radio-frequency radiation on our health and recommend the prudent
4 avoidance of equipment which generates non-ionizing radiation, and
5 WHEREAS, The full Parliament of the European Union has raised concerns about the
6 exposure of children and young people to electromagnetic fields and continuing uncertainties
7 about possible health risks; and therefore, adopted on April 2, 2009 a resolution encouraging
8 1) the establishment of setback criteria for wireless antennas, mobile phone masts and other
9 electromagnetic emitting devices to be set within a specific distance from schools and health
10 institutions, 2) stricter regulations and protections for residents and Consumers and 3) more
11 reliable information be made available about the effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields
12 to citizens in an effort to prevent a "proliferation of poorly positioned masts and transmitters,"
13 and
14 WHEREAS, The Federal Communications Commission is obliged to conduct periodic
15 reviews of current research and analysis of the health implications associated with radio-
16 frequency exposures in cooperation with industry, agency, and organizations responsible for
17 community health and safety to ensure exposure guidelines are appropriate and scientifically
18 valid, now, therefore, be it
19 RESOLVED, That the San Francisco Board of Supervisors urges the U.S.
20 Environmental Protection Agency to perform the appropriate research and experimentation to
21 determine the effects of non-ionizing radiation on the health of adults and children and, if
22 appropriate, establish a safe level of exposure, and be it
23 FURTHER RESOLVED, That the San Francisco Board of Supervisors urges the
24 Federal Communications Commission to pursue a comprehensive global analysis of best
25
Supervisor David Campos, John Avalos, Carmen Chu
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2
0111312010
1 practices and scientific evidence in order to update its existing standards and to adequately
2 measure the health impacts of wireless facilities, and be it
3 FURTHER RESOLVED, That the San Francisco Board of Supervisors encourages the
4 California Congressional delegation to introduce federal legislation to repeal limitations on
5 state and local authority imposed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that infringe upon
6 the authority of local governments to regulate the placement, construction and modification of
7 telecommunications towers and other personal wireless services facilities on the basis of the
8 health and environmental effects of these facilities, and be it
9 FURTHER RESOLVED, That the San Francisco Board of Supervisors hereby directs
10 the Clerk of the Board to send a copy of this resolution to the offices of Senator Barbara
11 Boxer, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Congresswoman Jackie Speier, the
12 Federal Communications Commission, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Supervisor David Campos, John Avalos, Carmen Chu
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 3
01/13/2010
City and County of San Francisco
Tails
Resolution
City Hall
J Dr. CarltonB. GoodlettPlace
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
File Number: 100043 Date Passed: March 23, 2010
Resolution urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to study the health impacts of wireless
facilities and, if appropriate, to establish a safe level of exposure to radiofrequency radiation emissions;
urging the Federal Communications Commission to update its existing standards; and urging the
California Congressional Delegation to introduce federal legislation to repeal limitations on state and
local authority imposed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
March 23, 2010 Board of Supervisors - ADOPTED
Ayes: 10 - Avalos, Campos, Chiu, Chu, Daly, Dufty, Elsbernd, Mar, Maxwell and
Mirkarimi
Excused: 1 - Alioto-Pier
File No.1 00043 I hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was ADOPTED on 3/23/2010 by
the Board of Supervisors of the City and
County of San Francisco.
~...g~~
Angela Calvillo
Clerk of the Board
Mayor Gavin Newsom
City ami County ofSalt Francisco Page4 Printed at 9:23 am 011 3/24/10
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Radiation danger
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/mobilephone.html Pregnant women need to reduce near contact with mobile phone radiation. New research and pressure to reveal this has forced them to protect the public rather than industry
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
serious
Press release
Avoiding potential risks of electromagnetic fields
(Plenary sessions)
Public health - 02-04-2009 - 12:34
Download the article in PDF format
Antennas, mobile phone masts and other electromagnetic emitting devices should be set within a specific distance from schools and health institutions, according to a report adopted by the European Parliament. The Commission should make more reliable information available about the effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields to citizens who feel that they are not well informed. The report was adopted with 559 votes in favour, 22 against and 8 abstentions.
The report acknowledges the wide use of wireless technologies and other electromagnetic emitting technologies and their benefits to society, but also raises concerns over their "continuing uncertainties about possible health risks." In particular, there are concerns about the exposure of children and young people to electromagnetic fields. Therefore, MEPs call for stricter regulation and protection for residents and consumers.
Better protection for EU citizens through "optimal placement of devices"
The report, drafted by Frédérique RIES (ALDE, BE), notes that industry stakeholders can already influence a number of safety factors, including the direction of the transmitting antenna in relation to living spaces, and the distance between the site and the transmitter. Industry actors are being encouraged to use this power to give better protection to people living nearby, and to prevent a "proliferation of poorly positioned masts and transmitters."
The placement of antennas, mobile phone masts and high-voltage power lines should be negotiated between industry actors, public authorities and residents' associations in order to minimise health risks and legal action cases. This will also ensure that EMF-transmitting devices are kept clear of schools, crèches, retirement homes and health care institutions. In addition to this, the House recommends that mobile telephone operators should negotiate to share infrastructure in order to reduce "the exposure of the public to EMFs."
Increased access to reliable information
A recently published Eurobarometer study suggests that "the majority of citizens do not feel that the public authorities inform them adequately on measures to protect them from EMFs." In light of this, the report makes a number of suggestions to improve EU citizen's access to reliable information. These suggestions include making maps available on the internet, which show areas of exposure to EMF transmitting devices. In conjunction with this, the Commission should produce a yearly report on the "level of electromagnetic radiation in the EU" and its sources.
MEPs also call for an improvement to consumer information, by amending the technical standards of the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation to impose labelling requirements, which would show the transmitting power of every wireless-operated device.
Review of EMF limits and Interphone findings
The Commission is urged to review "the scientific basis and adequacy of the EMF limits as laid down in Recommendation 1999/519/EC" and to then report back to Parliament. This is in light of the fact that many member states have voluntarily introduced much stricter regulations than are required by the EU.
The report also refers to the Interphone study, which began in 2000, and which is a wide ranging scientific project to look into the links between mobile phones and certain types of cancer, including brain, auditory and parotid gland tumours. The results have been expected since 2006, but have been repeatedly postponed. The European Parliament is particularly concerned by the "appeal for caution" from Elisabeth Cardis, the coordinator of the Interphone study, that "as far as children are concerned, mobile phones should not be used beyond reasonable limits."
The report therefore calls on the Commission, who has made significant financial contributions towards this study, to ask those who are in charge of the project "why no definitive findings have been published." Parliament and Member States should be informed without delay if a response is given.
Children and young people
Children and young people aged 10 to 20 are amongst the highest users of mobile phones, which is of concern to the House as there are uncertainties remaining about the possible health risks, "particularly to young people whose brains are still developing." The report suggests that in order to raise awareness of the dangers of mobile phones, and to encourage good mobile phone techniques, such as using hands-free kits, keeping calls short and switching off phones, that "the Community funding earmarked for studies on EMFs be partly switched to finance" an awareness raising campaign.
Aggressive marketing campaigns by telephone operators, including "the sale of mobile phones designed solely for children or free call time packages aimed at teenagers" are also condemned by MEPs.
REF. : 20090401IPR53233
Contact
Constanze BECKERHOFF
* E-mail address : envi-press@europarl.europa.eu
* Telephone number in Brussels : (32-2) 28 44302 (BXL)
* Telephone number in Strasbourg : (33-3) 881 73780 (STR)
* Mobile number : (32) 0498.983.550
Richard FREEDMAN
* E-mail address : press-EN@europarl.europa.eu
* Telephone number in Brussels : (32-2) 28 41448 (BXL)
* Telephone number in Strasbourg : (33-3) 881 73785 (STR)
* Mobile number : (+32) 498 98 32 39
Avoiding potential risks of electromagnetic fields
(Plenary sessions)
Public health - 02-04-2009 - 12:34
Download the article in PDF format
Antennas, mobile phone masts and other electromagnetic emitting devices should be set within a specific distance from schools and health institutions, according to a report adopted by the European Parliament. The Commission should make more reliable information available about the effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields to citizens who feel that they are not well informed. The report was adopted with 559 votes in favour, 22 against and 8 abstentions.
The report acknowledges the wide use of wireless technologies and other electromagnetic emitting technologies and their benefits to society, but also raises concerns over their "continuing uncertainties about possible health risks." In particular, there are concerns about the exposure of children and young people to electromagnetic fields. Therefore, MEPs call for stricter regulation and protection for residents and consumers.
Better protection for EU citizens through "optimal placement of devices"
The report, drafted by Frédérique RIES (ALDE, BE), notes that industry stakeholders can already influence a number of safety factors, including the direction of the transmitting antenna in relation to living spaces, and the distance between the site and the transmitter. Industry actors are being encouraged to use this power to give better protection to people living nearby, and to prevent a "proliferation of poorly positioned masts and transmitters."
The placement of antennas, mobile phone masts and high-voltage power lines should be negotiated between industry actors, public authorities and residents' associations in order to minimise health risks and legal action cases. This will also ensure that EMF-transmitting devices are kept clear of schools, crèches, retirement homes and health care institutions. In addition to this, the House recommends that mobile telephone operators should negotiate to share infrastructure in order to reduce "the exposure of the public to EMFs."
Increased access to reliable information
A recently published Eurobarometer study suggests that "the majority of citizens do not feel that the public authorities inform them adequately on measures to protect them from EMFs." In light of this, the report makes a number of suggestions to improve EU citizen's access to reliable information. These suggestions include making maps available on the internet, which show areas of exposure to EMF transmitting devices. In conjunction with this, the Commission should produce a yearly report on the "level of electromagnetic radiation in the EU" and its sources.
MEPs also call for an improvement to consumer information, by amending the technical standards of the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation to impose labelling requirements, which would show the transmitting power of every wireless-operated device.
Review of EMF limits and Interphone findings
The Commission is urged to review "the scientific basis and adequacy of the EMF limits as laid down in Recommendation 1999/519/EC" and to then report back to Parliament. This is in light of the fact that many member states have voluntarily introduced much stricter regulations than are required by the EU.
The report also refers to the Interphone study, which began in 2000, and which is a wide ranging scientific project to look into the links between mobile phones and certain types of cancer, including brain, auditory and parotid gland tumours. The results have been expected since 2006, but have been repeatedly postponed. The European Parliament is particularly concerned by the "appeal for caution" from Elisabeth Cardis, the coordinator of the Interphone study, that "as far as children are concerned, mobile phones should not be used beyond reasonable limits."
The report therefore calls on the Commission, who has made significant financial contributions towards this study, to ask those who are in charge of the project "why no definitive findings have been published." Parliament and Member States should be informed without delay if a response is given.
Children and young people
Children and young people aged 10 to 20 are amongst the highest users of mobile phones, which is of concern to the House as there are uncertainties remaining about the possible health risks, "particularly to young people whose brains are still developing." The report suggests that in order to raise awareness of the dangers of mobile phones, and to encourage good mobile phone techniques, such as using hands-free kits, keeping calls short and switching off phones, that "the Community funding earmarked for studies on EMFs be partly switched to finance" an awareness raising campaign.
Aggressive marketing campaigns by telephone operators, including "the sale of mobile phones designed solely for children or free call time packages aimed at teenagers" are also condemned by MEPs.
REF. : 20090401IPR53233
Contact
Constanze BECKERHOFF
* E-mail address : envi-press@europarl.europa.eu
* Telephone number in Brussels : (32-2) 28 44302 (BXL)
* Telephone number in Strasbourg : (33-3) 881 73780 (STR)
* Mobile number : (32) 0498.983.550
Richard FREEDMAN
* E-mail address : press-EN@europarl.europa.eu
* Telephone number in Brussels : (32-2) 28 41448 (BXL)
* Telephone number in Strasbourg : (33-3) 881 73785 (STR)
* Mobile number : (+32) 498 98 32 39
Friday, December 5, 2008
EMF and children...Scientists say take precautions
I publish the following in full not only for what it says that is new, but also to help the reader to withstand the pressure from the Telecommunication companies. Pressure for example that has resulted in a large percentage of children having mobiles.
Beware if you are pregnant your child may be damaged.
Men, if you wish one day to have a child, note that sperm count is reduced when you are working in a high e smog office.
Teenagers have their own kind of "offices" Instruct your teen agers not to put their lap tops on their laps. Is your teenager (or smaller child) sitting with the lap top on his lap, holding a mobile in his hand connected to a friend who has joined the game being played, while the apartment is invaded by ones own and neighbors wifi and dect phones nearby etc and maybe a mobile sender/receiver mobile mounted inconspicuously on a nearby apartment house, store school or church. (You won't see the disc til you look.)
Remember too, time spent by children in wifi schools, near towers, on street cars and trams and trains with high radiation levels from many people using mobiles at once.
In the north radiation from walking on warming cables (to melt snow in commercial areas)influences your body. It is not easy to notice unless you are aware. This cable radiation can be detected up to the 3rd floor of buildings adjacent to the warming cables.
Add to this or multiply it with the dirty electricity in most home (dirty because the original smooth 50 or 60 cycles have been broken down. Multiple specialized electronic uses have broken down the smooth cycles adding harmonics in the bioactive frequency range). Dirty electricity produces extreme low frequencies that effect all living creature also children.
This exposure can produce serious disease over a period of ten years exposure.. Studies of ten year exposure samples, though the number of people who have lived in e smog intense environments is small show cause for concern about epidemics that can come when many people live in high levels of electromagnetic e smog pollution.
Whatever you can do to reduce the sources of radiation is of value. It is surprising that the multiplying effect of all these sources of pollution receive no attention in the literature and disinformation put out by the power and telecommunication industry and their lobbies. And in fact even tose scientists who study effect tend to examine one effect at a time in order to preserve the orderliness of their data.
I say multiplying effect because in biological systems, as you know from experience, two sicknesses have a multiplying effect. Loss of one leg and then the second is not simply a double effect.
Please do not be discouraged by this note but take the problem seriously and reduce exposure in every way you can. Do not allow your child to have a mobile in spite of his demand ... everyone else has one! Become informed! Take part in Public action. Take courage from what has happened that has reduced smoking in spite of tobacco industry and lobby pressure.
Now take look below...scan it and notice the scientists who take the problem very seriously. They are not in the employ of the industry
Homepage > Resolutions > Benevento Resolution
Benevento Resolution
The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS) held an international conference entitled “The Precautionary EMF Approach: Rationale, Legislation and Implementation”, hosted by the City of Benevento, Italy, on February 22, 23 & 24, 2006. The meeting was dedicated to W. Ross Adey, M.D. (1922-2004). The scientists at the conference endorsed and extended the 2002 Catania Resolution and resolved that:
1. More evidence has accumulated suggesting that there are adverse health effects from occupational and public exposures to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields, or EMF1, at current exposure levels. What is needed, but not yet realized, is a comprehensive, independent and transparent examination of the evidence pointing to this emerging, potential public health issue.
2. Resources for such an assessment are grossly inadequate despite the explosive growth of technologies for wireless communications as well as the huge ongoing investment in power transmission.
3. There is evidence that present sources of funding bias the analysis and interpretation of research findings towards rejection of evidence of possible public health risks.
4. Arguments that weak (low intensity) EMF cannot affect biological systems do not represent the current spectrum of scientific opinion.
5. Based on our review of the science, biological effects can occur from exposures to both extremely low frequency fields (ELF EMF) and radiation frequency fields (RF EMF). Epidemiological and in vivo as well as in vitro experimental evidence demonstrates that exposure to some ELF EMF can increase cancer risk in children and induce other health problems in both children and adults. Further, there is accumulating epidemiological evidence indicating an increased brain tumor risk from long term use of mobile phones, the first RF EMF that has started to be comprehensively studied. Epidemiological and laboratory studies that show increased risks for cancers and other diseases from occupational exposures to EMF cannot be ignored. Laboratory studies on cancers and other diseases have reported that hypersensitivity to EMF may be due in part to a genetic predisposition.
6. We encourage governments to adopt a framework of guidelines for public and occupational EMF exposure that reflect the Precautionary Principle2 -- as some nations have already done. Precautionary strategies should be based on design and performance standards and may not necessarily define numerical thresholds because such thresholds may erroneously be interpreted as levels below which no adverse effect can occur. These strategies should include:
6.1 Promote alternatives to wireless communication systems, e.g., use of fiber optics and coaxial cables; design cellular phones that meet safer performance specifications, including radiating away from the head; preserve existing land line phone networks; place power lines underground in the vicinity of populated areas, only siting them in residential neighborhoods as a last resort;
6.2 Inform the population of the potential risks of cell phone and cordless phone use. Advise consumers to limit wireless calls and use a land line for long conversations.
6.3 Limit cell phone and cordless phone use by young children and teenagers to the lowest possible level and urgently ban telecom companies from marketing to them.
6.4 Require manufacturers to supply hands-free kits (via speaker phones or ear phones), with each cell phone and cordless phone.
6.5 Protect workers from EMF generating equipment, through access restrictions and EMF shielding of both individuals and physical structures.
6.6 Plan communications antenna and tower locations to minimize human exposure. Register mobile phone base stations with local planning agencies and use computer mapping technology to inform the public on possible exposures. Proposals for city-wide wireless access systems (e.g. Wi-Fi, WIMAX, broadband over cable or power-line or equivalent technologies) should require public review of potential EMF exposure and, if installed, municipalities should ensure this information is available to all and updated on a timely basis.
6.7 Designate wireless-free zones in cities, in public buildings (schools, hospitals, residential areas) and, on public transit, to permit access by persons who are hypersensitive to EMF.
7. ICEMS3 is willing to assist authorities in the development of an EMF research agenda. ICEMS encourages the development of clinical and epidemiological protocols for investigations of geographical clusters of persons with reported allergic reactions and other diseases or sensitivities to EMF, and document the effectiveness of preventive interventions. ICEMS encourages scientific collaboration and reviews of research findings.
1 EMF, in this resolution, refers to zero to 300 GHz.
2 The Precautionary Principle states when there are indications of possible adverse effects, though they remain uncertain, the risks from doing nothing may be far greater than the risks of taking action to control these exposures. The Precautionary Principle shifts the burden of proof from those suspecting a risk to those who discount it.
3 International Commission For Electromagnetic Safety.
We, the undersigned scientists, agree to assist in the promotion of EMF research and the development of strategies to protect public health through the wise application of the precautionary principle.
Signed:
Fiorella Belpoggi, European Foundation for Oncology & Environmental Sciences, B.Ramazzini, Bologna, Italy
Carl F. Blackman, President, Bioelectromagnetics Society (1990-91), Raleigh, NC, USA
Martin Blank, Department of Physiology, Columbia University, New York, USA
Natalia Bobkova, Institute of Cell Biophysics, Pushchino, Moscow Region
Francesco Boella, National Inst. Prevention & Worker Safety, Venice, Italy
Zhaojin Cao, National Institute Environmental Health, Chinese Center for Disease Control, China
Sandro D’Allessandro, Physician, Mayor of Benevento, Italy, (2001-2006)
Enrico D’Emilia, National Institute for Prevention and Worker Safety, Monteporzio, Italy
Emilio Del Giuduice, National Institute for Nuclear Physics, Milan, Italy
Antonella De Ninno,Italian National Agency For Energy, Environment & Technology, Frascati, Italy
Alvaro A. De Salles, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Livio Giuliani,East Veneto&South Triol, National Inst. Prevention & Worker Safety, Camerino University
Yury Grigoryev, Institute of Biophysics; Chairman, Russian National Committee NIERP
Settimo Grimaldi, Inst. Neurobiology & Molecular Medicine, National Research, Rome, Italy
Lennart Hardell, Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden
Magda Havas, Environmental & Resource Studies, Trent University, Ontario, Canada
Gerard Hyland, Warwick University, UK; International Inst. Biophysics, Germany; EM Radiation Trust, UK
Olle Johansson,Experimental Dermatology Unit, Neuroscience Department, Karolinska Institute, Sweden
Henry C. Lai, Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, USA
Mario Ledda, Inst. Neurobiology & Molecular Medicine, National Council for Research, Rome, Italy
Yi-Ping Lin, Center of Health Risk Assessment & Policy, National Taiwan University, Taiwan
Antonella Lisi, Inst. Neurobiology & Molecular Medicine, National Research Council, Rome, Italy
Fiorenzo Marinelli, Institute of Immunocytology, National Research Council, Bologna, Italy
Elihu Richter, Head, Occupational & Environmental Medicine, Hebrew University-Hadassah, Israel
Emanuela Rosola, Inst. Neurobiology & Molecular Medicine, National ResearchCouncil, Rome, Italy
Leif Salford, Chairman, Department of Neurosurgery, Lund University, Sweden
Nesrin Seyhan, Head, Department of Biophysics; Director, Gazi NIRP Center, Ankara, Turkey
Morando Soffritti, Scientific Director, European Foundation for Oncology & Environmental Sciences, B. Ramazzini, Bologna, Italy
Stanislaw Szmigielski, Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Warsaw, Poland
Mikhail Zhadin, Institute of Cell Biophysics, Pushchino, Moscow Region.
Date of Release: September 19, 2006. For more information, contact Elizabeth Kelley, Managing Secretariat, International Commission For Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS), Montepulciano, Italy. Email: info@icems.eu.
Additional signers to the Benevento Resolution:
Igor Y. Belyaev, Dept. Genetics, Microbiology and Toxicology, Arrhenius Laboratories for Natural Sciences, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
William J. Bruno, Ph.D., Theoretical Biophysics, awarded by Department of Physics, University of California at Berkeley, USA
Mauro Cristaldi, Dip, B.A.U. Universita degli Studi "La Sapienza", Roma, Italia
Suleyman Dasdag, Biophysics Department of Medical School, Dicle University, Diyarbakir,Turkey
Sandy Doull, Consultant, Noel Arnold & Associates, Box Hill VIC, Australia
Christos D. Georgiou, Assoc. Professor of Biochemistry, Department of Biology, University of Patras, Greece
Reba Goodman, Prof. Emeritus, Clinical Pathology, Columbia University, New York, New York USA
Luisa Anna Ieradi, Istituto per lo Studio degli Ecosistemi C.N.R., Roma, Italia
Michael Kundi, Head,Institute Environmental Health, Medical University of Vienna, Austria
Angelo Gino Levis, Professor Emeritus, Environmental Oncology, Padua University, Italy
Lukas H. Margaritis, Professor of Cell Biology and Radiobiology, Athens University, Athens, Greece
Vera Markovic, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Nis, Serbia
Gerd Oberfeld, Federal Salzburg Government. National Medical Management, Public Health Hygiene and Environmental Health, Salzburg, Austria
Jerry L. Phillips, Professor, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs
Zamir Shalita, Consultant on Electromagnetic Hazards, Ramat Gan, Israel
E. Stanton Maxey, M.D. retired surgeon, Fayetteville Arkansas
Ion Udroiu, Dip. B.A.U., Università degli Studi "La Sapienza", Roma, Italia
Mehmet Zeyrek, Prof., Physics Department, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
Stelios A Zinelis M.D., Vice President, Hellenic Cancer Society, Cefallonia, Greece
Anna Zucchero, MD, Internal Medicine Department. Venice-Mestre Hospital, Venice, Italy
Additional signers who are qualified but have not published EMF papers or published prior to 2000.
Andrew Goldsworthy, Lecturer in Biology (retired), Imperial College London.
Sarah J. Starkey, PhD, Neuroscience, University of London, London, United Kingdom
CATANIA RESOLUTION
September 2002
The Scientists at the International Conference
“State of the Research on Electromagnetic Fields – Scientific and Legal Issues”, organized by ISPESL*, the University of Vienna and the City of Catania, held in Catania (Italy) on September 13th – 14th, 2002, agree to the following:
1. Epidemiological and in vivo and in vitro experimental evidence demonstrates the existence of electromagnetic field (EMF) induced effects, some of which can be adverse to health.
2. We take exception to arguments suggesting that weak (low intensity) EMF cannot interact with tissue.
3. There are plausible mechanistic explanations for EMF-induced effects which occur below present ICNIRP and IEEE guidelines and exposure recommendations by the EU.
4. The weight of evidence calls for preventive strategies based on the precautionary principle. At times the precautionary principle may involve prudent avoidance and prudent use.
5. We are aware that there are gaps in knowledge on biological and physical effects, and health risks related to EMF, which require additional independent research.
6. The undersigned scientists agree to establish an international scientific commission to promote research for the protection of public health from EMF and to develop the scientific basis and strategies for assessment, prevention, management and communication of risk, based on the precautionary principle.
Fiorella Belpoggi, Fondazione Ramazzini, Bologna, Italy
Carl F. Blackman, President of the Bioelectromagnetics Society (1990-1991), Raleigh, USA
Martin Blank, Department of Physiology, Columbia University, New York, USA
Emilio Del Giudice, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Milano, Italy
Livio Giuliani, Camerino University - ISPESL*, Venezia, Italy
Settimio Grimaldi, CNR-Istituto di Neurobiologia e Medicina Molecolare, Roma, Italy
Lennart Hardell, Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden
Michael Kundi, Institute of Environmental Health, University of Vienna, Austria
Henry Lai, Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington, USA
Abraham R. Liboff, Department of Physics, Oakland University, USA
Wolfgang Löscher, Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmacy, School of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover, Germany
Kjell Hansson Mild, President of the Bioelectromagnetics Society (1996-1997), National Institute of Working Life, Umea, Sweden
Wilhelm Mosgöller, Institute for Cancer Research, University of Vienna, Austria
Elihu D. Richter, Head, Unit of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, School of Public Health, Hebrew University-Hadassah, Jerusalem, Israel.
Umberto Scapagnini, Neuropharmacology, University of Catania, Italy, Member of the Research Comm. of the European Parliament
Stanislaw Szmigielski, Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Warsaw, Poland
* = Istituto Superiore per la Prevenzione e la Sicurezza del Lavoro, Italy (National Institute for Prevention and Work Safety, Italy)
Powered by Google
Beware if you are pregnant your child may be damaged.
Men, if you wish one day to have a child, note that sperm count is reduced when you are working in a high e smog office.
Teenagers have their own kind of "offices" Instruct your teen agers not to put their lap tops on their laps. Is your teenager (or smaller child) sitting with the lap top on his lap, holding a mobile in his hand connected to a friend who has joined the game being played, while the apartment is invaded by ones own and neighbors wifi and dect phones nearby etc and maybe a mobile sender/receiver mobile mounted inconspicuously on a nearby apartment house, store school or church. (You won't see the disc til you look.)
Remember too, time spent by children in wifi schools, near towers, on street cars and trams and trains with high radiation levels from many people using mobiles at once.
In the north radiation from walking on warming cables (to melt snow in commercial areas)influences your body. It is not easy to notice unless you are aware. This cable radiation can be detected up to the 3rd floor of buildings adjacent to the warming cables.
Add to this or multiply it with the dirty electricity in most home (dirty because the original smooth 50 or 60 cycles have been broken down. Multiple specialized electronic uses have broken down the smooth cycles adding harmonics in the bioactive frequency range). Dirty electricity produces extreme low frequencies that effect all living creature also children.
This exposure can produce serious disease over a period of ten years exposure.. Studies of ten year exposure samples, though the number of people who have lived in e smog intense environments is small show cause for concern about epidemics that can come when many people live in high levels of electromagnetic e smog pollution.
Whatever you can do to reduce the sources of radiation is of value. It is surprising that the multiplying effect of all these sources of pollution receive no attention in the literature and disinformation put out by the power and telecommunication industry and their lobbies. And in fact even tose scientists who study effect tend to examine one effect at a time in order to preserve the orderliness of their data.
I say multiplying effect because in biological systems, as you know from experience, two sicknesses have a multiplying effect. Loss of one leg and then the second is not simply a double effect.
Please do not be discouraged by this note but take the problem seriously and reduce exposure in every way you can. Do not allow your child to have a mobile in spite of his demand ... everyone else has one! Become informed! Take part in Public action. Take courage from what has happened that has reduced smoking in spite of tobacco industry and lobby pressure.
Now take look below...scan it and notice the scientists who take the problem very seriously. They are not in the employ of the industry
Homepage > Resolutions > Benevento Resolution
Benevento Resolution
The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS) held an international conference entitled “The Precautionary EMF Approach: Rationale, Legislation and Implementation”, hosted by the City of Benevento, Italy, on February 22, 23 & 24, 2006. The meeting was dedicated to W. Ross Adey, M.D. (1922-2004). The scientists at the conference endorsed and extended the 2002 Catania Resolution and resolved that:
1. More evidence has accumulated suggesting that there are adverse health effects from occupational and public exposures to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields, or EMF1, at current exposure levels. What is needed, but not yet realized, is a comprehensive, independent and transparent examination of the evidence pointing to this emerging, potential public health issue.
2. Resources for such an assessment are grossly inadequate despite the explosive growth of technologies for wireless communications as well as the huge ongoing investment in power transmission.
3. There is evidence that present sources of funding bias the analysis and interpretation of research findings towards rejection of evidence of possible public health risks.
4. Arguments that weak (low intensity) EMF cannot affect biological systems do not represent the current spectrum of scientific opinion.
5. Based on our review of the science, biological effects can occur from exposures to both extremely low frequency fields (ELF EMF) and radiation frequency fields (RF EMF). Epidemiological and in vivo as well as in vitro experimental evidence demonstrates that exposure to some ELF EMF can increase cancer risk in children and induce other health problems in both children and adults. Further, there is accumulating epidemiological evidence indicating an increased brain tumor risk from long term use of mobile phones, the first RF EMF that has started to be comprehensively studied. Epidemiological and laboratory studies that show increased risks for cancers and other diseases from occupational exposures to EMF cannot be ignored. Laboratory studies on cancers and other diseases have reported that hypersensitivity to EMF may be due in part to a genetic predisposition.
6. We encourage governments to adopt a framework of guidelines for public and occupational EMF exposure that reflect the Precautionary Principle2 -- as some nations have already done. Precautionary strategies should be based on design and performance standards and may not necessarily define numerical thresholds because such thresholds may erroneously be interpreted as levels below which no adverse effect can occur. These strategies should include:
6.1 Promote alternatives to wireless communication systems, e.g., use of fiber optics and coaxial cables; design cellular phones that meet safer performance specifications, including radiating away from the head; preserve existing land line phone networks; place power lines underground in the vicinity of populated areas, only siting them in residential neighborhoods as a last resort;
6.2 Inform the population of the potential risks of cell phone and cordless phone use. Advise consumers to limit wireless calls and use a land line for long conversations.
6.3 Limit cell phone and cordless phone use by young children and teenagers to the lowest possible level and urgently ban telecom companies from marketing to them.
6.4 Require manufacturers to supply hands-free kits (via speaker phones or ear phones), with each cell phone and cordless phone.
6.5 Protect workers from EMF generating equipment, through access restrictions and EMF shielding of both individuals and physical structures.
6.6 Plan communications antenna and tower locations to minimize human exposure. Register mobile phone base stations with local planning agencies and use computer mapping technology to inform the public on possible exposures. Proposals for city-wide wireless access systems (e.g. Wi-Fi, WIMAX, broadband over cable or power-line or equivalent technologies) should require public review of potential EMF exposure and, if installed, municipalities should ensure this information is available to all and updated on a timely basis.
6.7 Designate wireless-free zones in cities, in public buildings (schools, hospitals, residential areas) and, on public transit, to permit access by persons who are hypersensitive to EMF.
7. ICEMS3 is willing to assist authorities in the development of an EMF research agenda. ICEMS encourages the development of clinical and epidemiological protocols for investigations of geographical clusters of persons with reported allergic reactions and other diseases or sensitivities to EMF, and document the effectiveness of preventive interventions. ICEMS encourages scientific collaboration and reviews of research findings.
1 EMF, in this resolution, refers to zero to 300 GHz.
2 The Precautionary Principle states when there are indications of possible adverse effects, though they remain uncertain, the risks from doing nothing may be far greater than the risks of taking action to control these exposures. The Precautionary Principle shifts the burden of proof from those suspecting a risk to those who discount it.
3 International Commission For Electromagnetic Safety.
We, the undersigned scientists, agree to assist in the promotion of EMF research and the development of strategies to protect public health through the wise application of the precautionary principle.
Signed:
Fiorella Belpoggi, European Foundation for Oncology & Environmental Sciences, B.Ramazzini, Bologna, Italy
Carl F. Blackman, President, Bioelectromagnetics Society (1990-91), Raleigh, NC, USA
Martin Blank, Department of Physiology, Columbia University, New York, USA
Natalia Bobkova, Institute of Cell Biophysics, Pushchino, Moscow Region
Francesco Boella, National Inst. Prevention & Worker Safety, Venice, Italy
Zhaojin Cao, National Institute Environmental Health, Chinese Center for Disease Control, China
Sandro D’Allessandro, Physician, Mayor of Benevento, Italy, (2001-2006)
Enrico D’Emilia, National Institute for Prevention and Worker Safety, Monteporzio, Italy
Emilio Del Giuduice, National Institute for Nuclear Physics, Milan, Italy
Antonella De Ninno,Italian National Agency For Energy, Environment & Technology, Frascati, Italy
Alvaro A. De Salles, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Livio Giuliani,East Veneto&South Triol, National Inst. Prevention & Worker Safety, Camerino University
Yury Grigoryev, Institute of Biophysics; Chairman, Russian National Committee NIERP
Settimo Grimaldi, Inst. Neurobiology & Molecular Medicine, National Research, Rome, Italy
Lennart Hardell, Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden
Magda Havas, Environmental & Resource Studies, Trent University, Ontario, Canada
Gerard Hyland, Warwick University, UK; International Inst. Biophysics, Germany; EM Radiation Trust, UK
Olle Johansson,Experimental Dermatology Unit, Neuroscience Department, Karolinska Institute, Sweden
Henry C. Lai, Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, USA
Mario Ledda, Inst. Neurobiology & Molecular Medicine, National Council for Research, Rome, Italy
Yi-Ping Lin, Center of Health Risk Assessment & Policy, National Taiwan University, Taiwan
Antonella Lisi, Inst. Neurobiology & Molecular Medicine, National Research Council, Rome, Italy
Fiorenzo Marinelli, Institute of Immunocytology, National Research Council, Bologna, Italy
Elihu Richter, Head, Occupational & Environmental Medicine, Hebrew University-Hadassah, Israel
Emanuela Rosola, Inst. Neurobiology & Molecular Medicine, National ResearchCouncil, Rome, Italy
Leif Salford, Chairman, Department of Neurosurgery, Lund University, Sweden
Nesrin Seyhan, Head, Department of Biophysics; Director, Gazi NIRP Center, Ankara, Turkey
Morando Soffritti, Scientific Director, European Foundation for Oncology & Environmental Sciences, B. Ramazzini, Bologna, Italy
Stanislaw Szmigielski, Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Warsaw, Poland
Mikhail Zhadin, Institute of Cell Biophysics, Pushchino, Moscow Region.
Date of Release: September 19, 2006. For more information, contact Elizabeth Kelley, Managing Secretariat, International Commission For Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS), Montepulciano, Italy. Email: info@icems.eu.
Additional signers to the Benevento Resolution:
Igor Y. Belyaev, Dept. Genetics, Microbiology and Toxicology, Arrhenius Laboratories for Natural Sciences, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
William J. Bruno, Ph.D., Theoretical Biophysics, awarded by Department of Physics, University of California at Berkeley, USA
Mauro Cristaldi, Dip, B.A.U. Universita degli Studi "La Sapienza", Roma, Italia
Suleyman Dasdag, Biophysics Department of Medical School, Dicle University, Diyarbakir,Turkey
Sandy Doull, Consultant, Noel Arnold & Associates, Box Hill VIC, Australia
Christos D. Georgiou, Assoc. Professor of Biochemistry, Department of Biology, University of Patras, Greece
Reba Goodman, Prof. Emeritus, Clinical Pathology, Columbia University, New York, New York USA
Luisa Anna Ieradi, Istituto per lo Studio degli Ecosistemi C.N.R., Roma, Italia
Michael Kundi, Head,Institute Environmental Health, Medical University of Vienna, Austria
Angelo Gino Levis, Professor Emeritus, Environmental Oncology, Padua University, Italy
Lukas H. Margaritis, Professor of Cell Biology and Radiobiology, Athens University, Athens, Greece
Vera Markovic, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Nis, Serbia
Gerd Oberfeld, Federal Salzburg Government. National Medical Management, Public Health Hygiene and Environmental Health, Salzburg, Austria
Jerry L. Phillips, Professor, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs
Zamir Shalita, Consultant on Electromagnetic Hazards, Ramat Gan, Israel
E. Stanton Maxey, M.D. retired surgeon, Fayetteville Arkansas
Ion Udroiu, Dip. B.A.U., Università degli Studi "La Sapienza", Roma, Italia
Mehmet Zeyrek, Prof., Physics Department, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
Stelios A Zinelis M.D., Vice President, Hellenic Cancer Society, Cefallonia, Greece
Anna Zucchero, MD, Internal Medicine Department. Venice-Mestre Hospital, Venice, Italy
Additional signers who are qualified but have not published EMF papers or published prior to 2000.
Andrew Goldsworthy, Lecturer in Biology (retired), Imperial College London.
Sarah J. Starkey, PhD, Neuroscience, University of London, London, United Kingdom
CATANIA RESOLUTION
September 2002
The Scientists at the International Conference
“State of the Research on Electromagnetic Fields – Scientific and Legal Issues”, organized by ISPESL*, the University of Vienna and the City of Catania, held in Catania (Italy) on September 13th – 14th, 2002, agree to the following:
1. Epidemiological and in vivo and in vitro experimental evidence demonstrates the existence of electromagnetic field (EMF) induced effects, some of which can be adverse to health.
2. We take exception to arguments suggesting that weak (low intensity) EMF cannot interact with tissue.
3. There are plausible mechanistic explanations for EMF-induced effects which occur below present ICNIRP and IEEE guidelines and exposure recommendations by the EU.
4. The weight of evidence calls for preventive strategies based on the precautionary principle. At times the precautionary principle may involve prudent avoidance and prudent use.
5. We are aware that there are gaps in knowledge on biological and physical effects, and health risks related to EMF, which require additional independent research.
6. The undersigned scientists agree to establish an international scientific commission to promote research for the protection of public health from EMF and to develop the scientific basis and strategies for assessment, prevention, management and communication of risk, based on the precautionary principle.
Fiorella Belpoggi, Fondazione Ramazzini, Bologna, Italy
Carl F. Blackman, President of the Bioelectromagnetics Society (1990-1991), Raleigh, USA
Martin Blank, Department of Physiology, Columbia University, New York, USA
Emilio Del Giudice, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Milano, Italy
Livio Giuliani, Camerino University - ISPESL*, Venezia, Italy
Settimio Grimaldi, CNR-Istituto di Neurobiologia e Medicina Molecolare, Roma, Italy
Lennart Hardell, Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden
Michael Kundi, Institute of Environmental Health, University of Vienna, Austria
Henry Lai, Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington, USA
Abraham R. Liboff, Department of Physics, Oakland University, USA
Wolfgang Löscher, Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmacy, School of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover, Germany
Kjell Hansson Mild, President of the Bioelectromagnetics Society (1996-1997), National Institute of Working Life, Umea, Sweden
Wilhelm Mosgöller, Institute for Cancer Research, University of Vienna, Austria
Elihu D. Richter, Head, Unit of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, School of Public Health, Hebrew University-Hadassah, Jerusalem, Israel.
Umberto Scapagnini, Neuropharmacology, University of Catania, Italy, Member of the Research Comm. of the European Parliament
Stanislaw Szmigielski, Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Warsaw, Poland
* = Istituto Superiore per la Prevenzione e la Sicurezza del Lavoro, Italy (National Institute for Prevention and Work Safety, Italy)
Powered by Google
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Biological Measurement and SAR
Professor Carl Blackman is a man I admire. His chapter in The Bioinitiative Report ahows his deep thoughtfulness and ability to understand the nature of the mechanisms by which EMF damages children and all living systems whose control systems depend on frequencies similar to the EMF mechanically generated frequencies.
Prof. Blackman states:
"The sensitivity of today's state-of-the-art measuring equipment is still considerably inferior to that of living cells (a difference of 109, i.e. a factor of one billion)."
As far back as 1991, Prof. Carl Blackman (USA) a contributor to the Bioinitiative report asked that results obtained on “biological models” be acknowledged since they are the only ones that are sensitive enough to demonstrate the harmful effects of ELF
(editor... ELF frequencies are a part of the EMF spectrum of frequencies)
Prof. Blackman states:
"The sensitivity of today's state-of-the-art measuring equipment is still considerably inferior to that of living cells (a difference of 109, i.e. a factor of one billion)."
As far back as 1991, Prof. Carl Blackman (USA) a contributor to the Bioinitiative report asked that results obtained on “biological models” be acknowledged since they are the only ones that are sensitive enough to demonstrate the harmful effects of ELF
(editor... ELF frequencies are a part of the EMF spectrum of frequencies)
Friday, November 14, 2008
As Low As Reasonably Achievable
The Interphone Study reported by Bruce Armstrong is an international well documented study of EMF effects. As I understand the response It is considered by non industry scientists to be an effort to reduce public attention to the problem of e smog etc contamination.For example they have averaged out test results on all telephone users regardless of the length of time they have used mobiles. This dilutes the effects that come from longer (versus shorter) use. But here is one report of the results:
Bruce Armstrong advocates ALARA, especially for children and cell phone use" was written on the November 13, 2008 at 7:21 pm on "EMFacts Consultancy".
The following is a preliminary report from Sarah Benson, who attended
the ACRBR seminar 'Unplugged and Uncertain' on 12 November.
Dear All
Yesterday I attended the Australian Centre for RF Bioeffects
Research's seminar 'Unplugged and Uncertain' at Swinburne University
in Melbourne. This seminar was attended by about 100 industry,
community and media people.
Professor Bruce Armstrong, head of Sydney University's School of
Public Health and cancer expert, presented the Interphone results as
they exist so far. The details of the various types of tumour and the
survey results and methodology went over my head, but he concluded
that due to the overall raised rates of glioma tumour incidence he was
advocating that the ALARA principle (As Low As Reasonably Achievable)
be implemeted, especially when it comes to children. He also said
that more research was needed.
This is the first time in Australia that someone in a position of such
authority has come out and made such a strong statement - and he
repeated it several times.
The forum also covered other areas, such as domestic radiation levels
and teh ELF issues. Electrosensitivity was raised by one questionner,
and answered in full by the panel.
sent out by
http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=999 which is a very good source of e smog news and public reactions to mobiles towers etc and the legal challenges that are being actively pursued by public groups
Below you will find more details
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Island/5165/paulcv6.html
Bruce Armstrong advocates ALARA, especially for children and cell phone use" was written on the November 13, 2008 at 7:21 pm on "EMFacts Consultancy".
The following is a preliminary report from Sarah Benson, who attended
the ACRBR seminar 'Unplugged and Uncertain' on 12 November.
Dear All
Yesterday I attended the Australian Centre for RF Bioeffects
Research's seminar 'Unplugged and Uncertain' at Swinburne University
in Melbourne. This seminar was attended by about 100 industry,
community and media people.
Professor Bruce Armstrong, head of Sydney University's School of
Public Health and cancer expert, presented the Interphone results as
they exist so far. The details of the various types of tumour and the
survey results and methodology went over my head, but he concluded
that due to the overall raised rates of glioma tumour incidence he was
advocating that the ALARA principle (As Low As Reasonably Achievable)
be implemeted, especially when it comes to children. He also said
that more research was needed.
This is the first time in Australia that someone in a position of such
authority has come out and made such a strong statement - and he
repeated it several times.
The forum also covered other areas, such as domestic radiation levels
and teh ELF issues. Electrosensitivity was raised by one questionner,
and answered in full by the panel.
sent out by
http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=999 which is a very good source of e smog news and public reactions to mobiles towers etc and the legal challenges that are being actively pursued by public groups
Below you will find more details
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Island/5165/paulcv6.html
Monday, September 8, 2008
Risk to Children, Pregnant from Mobiles Concerns European Parliament
Dear all,
Just recently, Members of the European Parliament (MEP) critized the European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010 for not being more precise about how to implement prevention strategies, especially for vulnerable population groups, and how to actually reduce disease. Among other topics, they were especially concerned about the obselete exposure limits for electromagnetic fields:
"They are greatly concerned at the Bio-Initiative international report on electromagnetic fields, which highlights the health risks posed by emissions from mobile-telephony devices such as mobile telephones, UMTS, Wifi, Wimax and Bluetooth, and also DECT landline telephones. It notes that the limits on exposure to electromagnetic fields which have been set for the general public are obsolete. They do not take account of developments in information and communication technologies or vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women, newborn babies and children." (28 Aug 2008)
Source: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/briefing_page/33692-245-09-36-20080708BRI33691-01-09-2008-2008/default_p001c023_en.htm
In the German press release of the same plenary session, it is also noted that 522 MEPs supported this report and only 16 were against.
Source: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/briefing_page/33692-245-09-36-20080708BRI33691-01-09-2008-2008/default_p001c010_de.htm
Best regards,
Katharina Gustavs
Building Biology Environmental Consultant (IBN), Canada
Just recently, Members of the European Parliament (MEP) critized the European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010 for not being more precise about how to implement prevention strategies, especially for vulnerable population groups, and how to actually reduce disease. Among other topics, they were especially concerned about the obselete exposure limits for electromagnetic fields:
"They are greatly concerned at the Bio-Initiative international report on electromagnetic fields, which highlights the health risks posed by emissions from mobile-telephony devices such as mobile telephones, UMTS, Wifi, Wimax and Bluetooth, and also DECT landline telephones. It notes that the limits on exposure to electromagnetic fields which have been set for the general public are obsolete. They do not take account of developments in information and communication technologies or vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women, newborn babies and children." (28 Aug 2008)
Source: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/briefing_page/33692-245-09-36-20080708BRI33691-01-09-2008-2008/default_p001c023_en.htm
In the German press release of the same plenary session, it is also noted that 522 MEPs supported this report and only 16 were against.
Source: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/briefing_page/33692-245-09-36-20080708BRI33691-01-09-2008-2008/default_p001c010_de.htm
Best regards,
Katharina Gustavs
Building Biology Environmental Consultant (IBN), Canada
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
THE QUESTION OF POWER LINES AND TRANSFORMERS NEAR HOMES, SCHOOLS, AND PUBLIC PLACES
ARTISTIC dEMONSTRATION:
POWER LINES INTRODUCE FOREIGN CURRENTS INTO YOUR BODY ...a powerful artist will give you a shock...electric enough to awaken your inner intuition.
Consider what is presented on the site below. It is dramatic
...
At least consider how your children can be protected from radiation.
a
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/exclusive/2004
/pylon_ambience/index.html
POWER LINES INTRODUCE FOREIGN CURRENTS INTO YOUR BODY ...a powerful artist will give you a shock...electric enough to awaken your inner intuition.
Consider what is presented on the site below. It is dramatic
...
At least consider how your children can be protected from radiation.
a
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/exclusive/2004
/pylon_ambience/index.html
Saturday, August 9, 2008
How to reduce cell phone radiation
If you must choose to use a cell phone, use the speaker phone function whenever possible.
Keep the phone awa from any body part.
Do not keep the phone on your belt or in your pocket even when you’re not using it, as the radiation WILL penetrate your body wherever the phone is near.
Instead, stow it away in a purse, backpack, or your car’s glove compartment.
Shorten calls.
Do not use the phone when children are near. Consider cell phone use as kind of smoking...with invisible smoke. Children near are being radiated their bodies absorb more and they are much more vulnerable to long term exposure.
For times when a speakerphone isn’t practical, use an air-tube headset, rather than a on your displayonwireless Bluetooth.
Look at the vertical lines at the top of your phone screen. More lines means better connection to the naerest tower. Notice when there is a weak signal.FREQUENT USE OF CELL PHONES WHEN YOU HAVE A WEAK SIGNAL CARRIES GREATER RISK AS THE AMOUNT OF RADIATION PRODUCED BY YOUR TELEPHONE IS HIGHER WHICH INCREASES YOUR AND YOUR CHILDREN'S EXPOSURE
Talking outdoors or in open spaces or near a window where more vertical lines show on your display can improve the connection from your cell phone to your nearest cell phone tower.
If you live in a rural area where the nearest tower is far away, you are constantly exposed to greater amounts of radiation from your cell phone than city and urban users. Use a landline whenever feasible! Keep your phone off as it radiates when it is on. Use your mobile only for emergencies. At least keep it off most of the day and in the evening make short calls. Since it is the time the phone is on that is impportant this reduces exposure considerably.
Keep the phone awa from any body part.
Do not keep the phone on your belt or in your pocket even when you’re not using it, as the radiation WILL penetrate your body wherever the phone is near.
Instead, stow it away in a purse, backpack, or your car’s glove compartment.
Shorten calls.
Do not use the phone when children are near. Consider cell phone use as kind of smoking...with invisible smoke. Children near are being radiated their bodies absorb more and they are much more vulnerable to long term exposure.
For times when a speakerphone isn’t practical, use an air-tube headset, rather than a on your displayonwireless Bluetooth.
Look at the vertical lines at the top of your phone screen. More lines means better connection to the naerest tower. Notice when there is a weak signal.FREQUENT USE OF CELL PHONES WHEN YOU HAVE A WEAK SIGNAL CARRIES GREATER RISK AS THE AMOUNT OF RADIATION PRODUCED BY YOUR TELEPHONE IS HIGHER WHICH INCREASES YOUR AND YOUR CHILDREN'S EXPOSURE
Talking outdoors or in open spaces or near a window where more vertical lines show on your display can improve the connection from your cell phone to your nearest cell phone tower.
If you live in a rural area where the nearest tower is far away, you are constantly exposed to greater amounts of radiation from your cell phone than city and urban users. Use a landline whenever feasible! Keep your phone off as it radiates when it is on. Use your mobile only for emergencies. At least keep it off most of the day and in the evening make short calls. Since it is the time the phone is on that is impportant this reduces exposure considerably.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Children's Sensitivity to EMF pollution
WARNING TO PARENTS: CONTROL CHILDREN'S EXPOSURE TO MOBILE TELEPHONE AND THE OTHER MANY SOURCES OF EMF POLLUTION
Quote From Microwave NewsJuly 22 2008
The brains of young children absorb twice as much as RF energy from a cell phone as those of adults, according to a set of new calculations carried out by Joe Wiart's research group at France Telecom in the suburbs of Paris.
"[Our] analysis confirms that peripheral brain tissues of children seem to be higher exposed than the peripheral brain tissue of adults," Wiart concludes in a paper that appears in the July 7 issue of Physics in Medicine and Biology. "Children are not simply small adults." Wiart explained in an interview with Microwave News. "Their skin and their skulls are thinner than those of adults, and their ears are smaller too," he said. "Given these differences, the higher SAR for children is not surprising,"
These new findings apply to children who are eight years old or younger. Above the age of eight, the SARs in children are much like those of adults, according to Wiart.
"I agree with Joe," said Niels Kuster, the director of the IT'IS Foundation in Zurich. A team led by Kuster and Andreas Christ recently completed a project for the German Federal Office of Radiation Protection (BfS), which like Wiart, found that regions of the brains of young children can have exposures that are twice those of adults —or even higher.
Even more striking, Kuster and Christ concluded that the "exposure of the bone marrow of children can exceed that of adults by about a factor of ten." They also report that children's eyes are more highly exposed that those of adults.
Whether or not children are at a greater health risk than adults has been debated since at least the year 2000, when a U.K. panel chaired by Sir William Stewart advised that parents limit their children's use of mobile phones. Since then, other government groups, especially those in France and Germany, have issued similar precautionary recommendations.
The mobile phone industry has long disputed the possibility that children are at any greater risk. For instance, earlier this year after the French Ministry of Health reiterated concerns over children's use of cell phones, the MMF, an industry lobby group, issued an advisory stating that cell phones do not present health risks to any users "regardless of age."
The MMF has relied heavily on statements issued by the WHO's EMF Project in Geneva, and the Health Council of the Netherlands. For instance, in a paper published in 2004, the Health Council concluded that: "There is no convincing scientific data to assume a difference in the absorption of electromagnetic energy in heads of children and adults."
July 3… Exposures to ambient magnetic fields may affect the quality of human sperm and may well explain its well-documented decline over the last few decades. De-Kun Li, an epidemiologist at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, CA, has found that daily exposures of only 1.6mG or higher for at least two-and-a-half hours were associated with significantly poorer semen quality. Men who were exposed to over 1.6mG for over six hours a day were four times more likely to have substandard sperm.
"The longer you are exposed, the higher the risk," Li told Microwave News. He presented these new findings last week at the annual meeting of the Society for Epidemiologic Research, held in Chicago. He has submitted them for publication.
"If it holds up, this would be very important because magnetic field exposures are ubiquitous," Li said. "We know that sperm quality has been going down for a long time with the largest declines in urban areas. That would be consistent with EMF exposures which are highest in cities."
The quality of the semen was assessed according to WHO criteria for motility and morphology —that is, the ability of sperm to "swim" (to the egg) and their shape. "Sperm quality could turn out to be a sensitive endpoint to study the biological effects of EMFs," Li said.
Li is one of the few to explore new ways of defining what is a biologically significant dose of EMFs. An important implication of his new study is that while he might classify a man as being in a "high" exposure group, that same man could still have a time-weighted, 24-hour average exposure of less than 1mG, which would put him in the "unexposed" group in most past studies. Such a misclassification would reduce the chances of seeing this effect.
In a study published in 2002, Li showed that women exposed above a certain threshold (16mG) had higher rates of miscarriages (see MWN, J/F02, p.1). At the time, many considered that this new concept of EMF dose was worth pursuing. But, in fact, no one did —at least no one has yet published a follow-up study. "In that earlier study we saw higher miscarriage risks among women who had an exposure of more than 16mG at least once a day," Li said, "in our new study, men had poorer sperm quality if they were exposed to a much lower field but it had to be for at least 10% of the day."
The power-frequency fields implicated in this new study are extremely weak. They are approximately 1,000 times lower than the current ICNIRP guidelines and some three times lower than what many see as the threshold for increasing the risk of childhood leukemia (3-4mG). According to a large-scale survey carried out a decade ago, close to 15% of the U.S. population is exposed to an average of more than 2mG over a 24-hour period (see MWN, M/J98, p.4).
Quote From Microwave NewsJuly 22 2008
The brains of young children absorb twice as much as RF energy from a cell phone as those of adults, according to a set of new calculations carried out by Joe Wiart's research group at France Telecom in the suburbs of Paris.
"[Our] analysis confirms that peripheral brain tissues of children seem to be higher exposed than the peripheral brain tissue of adults," Wiart concludes in a paper that appears in the July 7 issue of Physics in Medicine and Biology. "Children are not simply small adults." Wiart explained in an interview with Microwave News. "Their skin and their skulls are thinner than those of adults, and their ears are smaller too," he said. "Given these differences, the higher SAR for children is not surprising,"
These new findings apply to children who are eight years old or younger. Above the age of eight, the SARs in children are much like those of adults, according to Wiart.
"I agree with Joe," said Niels Kuster, the director of the IT'IS Foundation in Zurich. A team led by Kuster and Andreas Christ recently completed a project for the German Federal Office of Radiation Protection (BfS), which like Wiart, found that regions of the brains of young children can have exposures that are twice those of adults —or even higher.
Even more striking, Kuster and Christ concluded that the "exposure of the bone marrow of children can exceed that of adults by about a factor of ten." They also report that children's eyes are more highly exposed that those of adults.
Whether or not children are at a greater health risk than adults has been debated since at least the year 2000, when a U.K. panel chaired by Sir William Stewart advised that parents limit their children's use of mobile phones. Since then, other government groups, especially those in France and Germany, have issued similar precautionary recommendations.
The mobile phone industry has long disputed the possibility that children are at any greater risk. For instance, earlier this year after the French Ministry of Health reiterated concerns over children's use of cell phones, the MMF, an industry lobby group, issued an advisory stating that cell phones do not present health risks to any users "regardless of age."
The MMF has relied heavily on statements issued by the WHO's EMF Project in Geneva, and the Health Council of the Netherlands. For instance, in a paper published in 2004, the Health Council concluded that: "There is no convincing scientific data to assume a difference in the absorption of electromagnetic energy in heads of children and adults."
July 3… Exposures to ambient magnetic fields may affect the quality of human sperm and may well explain its well-documented decline over the last few decades. De-Kun Li, an epidemiologist at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, CA, has found that daily exposures of only 1.6mG or higher for at least two-and-a-half hours were associated with significantly poorer semen quality. Men who were exposed to over 1.6mG for over six hours a day were four times more likely to have substandard sperm.
"The longer you are exposed, the higher the risk," Li told Microwave News. He presented these new findings last week at the annual meeting of the Society for Epidemiologic Research, held in Chicago. He has submitted them for publication.
"If it holds up, this would be very important because magnetic field exposures are ubiquitous," Li said. "We know that sperm quality has been going down for a long time with the largest declines in urban areas. That would be consistent with EMF exposures which are highest in cities."
The quality of the semen was assessed according to WHO criteria for motility and morphology —that is, the ability of sperm to "swim" (to the egg) and their shape. "Sperm quality could turn out to be a sensitive endpoint to study the biological effects of EMFs," Li said.
Li is one of the few to explore new ways of defining what is a biologically significant dose of EMFs. An important implication of his new study is that while he might classify a man as being in a "high" exposure group, that same man could still have a time-weighted, 24-hour average exposure of less than 1mG, which would put him in the "unexposed" group in most past studies. Such a misclassification would reduce the chances of seeing this effect.
In a study published in 2002, Li showed that women exposed above a certain threshold (16mG) had higher rates of miscarriages (see MWN, J/F02, p.1). At the time, many considered that this new concept of EMF dose was worth pursuing. But, in fact, no one did —at least no one has yet published a follow-up study. "In that earlier study we saw higher miscarriage risks among women who had an exposure of more than 16mG at least once a day," Li said, "in our new study, men had poorer sperm quality if they were exposed to a much lower field but it had to be for at least 10% of the day."
The power-frequency fields implicated in this new study are extremely weak. They are approximately 1,000 times lower than the current ICNIRP guidelines and some three times lower than what many see as the threshold for increasing the risk of childhood leukemia (3-4mG). According to a large-scale survey carried out a decade ago, close to 15% of the U.S. population is exposed to an average of more than 2mG over a 24-hour period (see MWN, M/J98, p.4).
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Can our body's internet be spammed?
This is just to remind you that you that you already know a great deal about your own and other peoples' energy and information fields which I shall call their internet
Our healthy bio information/energy internet and the information it carries can makes us glow with health.
When it is compromised we may feel cold, clammy, depressed or neutral (zero) and out of relationship with the many supporting energy fields around us. We are more vulnerable.
Our human biological internet is not just mystery.
Life maintenance depends on the information/energy/command exchanges between our cells.
Consider the electrical/information/command impulses in our nerves... and in many other intricate electromagnetic/information flows that are also essential to coordinating the billions of complex elements in our body so there is health.
These body internet information flows are more in the nature of delicately addressed significant email than in the nature of meaningless spam.
A human is not a closed 'thing'. It is alive and openly changing in relation to its its internal and surrounding ecology at all times. Its vitality depends on successfully maintaining its energy and information flow: its internal and external multidimensional and multimedia chatting
Extreme low frequency energies from our man made electromagnetic/information pollution, like spam, add noise to our health maintaining information systems.
E smog, the sum of all our man made electromagnetic exposure, creates spam like pollution in our body's internet.
Spam pollution is able to sneak in because it finds addresses and messages sufficiently similar to our body's intended message structure and creates noise. Too much noise and we are weakened, even sick.
This can reduce our ability to feel well and be well.
The public somehow seems to be afraid of the Microwave pollution but it does'nt make sense. A good metaphor can have the power in creating understanding. If you like this one please use it. It makes it easier to grasp that the E smog problem is not only being cooked by high microwave energies, but also being spammed by small bioactive noisy energies that imitate our bodies living information structure
As A medical doctor with training in neurology and man machine interfaces I suggest there is truth in this metaphor.
Warren Brodey M.D.
www.computer-clear.com
Our healthy bio information/energy internet and the information it carries can makes us glow with health.
When it is compromised we may feel cold, clammy, depressed or neutral (zero) and out of relationship with the many supporting energy fields around us. We are more vulnerable.
Our human biological internet is not just mystery.
Life maintenance depends on the information/energy/command exchanges between our cells.
Consider the electrical/information/command impulses in our nerves... and in many other intricate electromagnetic/information flows that are also essential to coordinating the billions of complex elements in our body so there is health.
These body internet information flows are more in the nature of delicately addressed significant email than in the nature of meaningless spam.
A human is not a closed 'thing'. It is alive and openly changing in relation to its its internal and surrounding ecology at all times. Its vitality depends on successfully maintaining its energy and information flow: its internal and external multidimensional and multimedia chatting
Extreme low frequency energies from our man made electromagnetic/information pollution, like spam, add noise to our health maintaining information systems.
E smog, the sum of all our man made electromagnetic exposure, creates spam like pollution in our body's internet.
Spam pollution is able to sneak in because it finds addresses and messages sufficiently similar to our body's intended message structure and creates noise. Too much noise and we are weakened, even sick.
This can reduce our ability to feel well and be well.
The public somehow seems to be afraid of the Microwave pollution but it does'nt make sense. A good metaphor can have the power in creating understanding. If you like this one please use it. It makes it easier to grasp that the E smog problem is not only being cooked by high microwave energies, but also being spammed by small bioactive noisy energies that imitate our bodies living information structure
As A medical doctor with training in neurology and man machine interfaces I suggest there is truth in this metaphor.
Warren Brodey M.D.
www.computer-clear.com
Quotes from the Bioinitiative Report
Brief Quotes from the Bioinitiative Report
A scientific study of more than 2000 research reports on the biological effects of Extreme Low Frequency and Radio Frequency Radiation
www.bioinitiative.org
Editor…color emphasis is added for quicker reading
The clear consensus of the BioInitiative Working Group members is that the existing public
There may be no lower limit at which exposures do not affect us. Until we know if there is a lower limit below which bioeffects and adverse health impacts do not occur, it is unwise from a public health perspective to continue “business-as-usual” deploying new technologies that increase ELF and RF exposures, particularly involuntary exposures
It appears it is the INFORMATION conveyed by electromagnetic radiation (rather than
There may be no lower limit at which exposures do not affect us.
There is little doubt that exposure to ELF causes childhood leukemia. There is some evidence that other childhood cancers may be related to ELF exposure but not enough studies have been done.
Children who have leukemia and are in recovery have poorer survival rates if their
ELF exposure at home (or where they are recovering) is between 1mG and 2 mG in one study; over 3 mG in another study.
New ELF public exposure limits are warranted at this time, given the existing scientific evidence and need for public health policy intervention and prevention.
People who have used a cell phone for ten years or more have higher rates of malignant brain tumor and acoustic neuromas. It is worse if the cell phone has been used primarily on one side of the head.
People who have used a cordless phone for ten years or more have higher rates of malignant brain tumor and acoustic neuromas. It is worse if the cordless phone has been used primarily on one side of the head
The current standard for exposure to the emissions of cell phones and cordless phones is not safe considering studies reporting long-term brain tumor and acoustic neuroma risks
The evidence from studies on women in the workplace rather strongly suggests that ELF is a risk factor for breast cancer for women with long-term exposures of 10 mG and higher.
Given the very high lifetime risks for developing breast cancer, and the critical importance of prevention; ELF exposures should be reduced for all people who are in high ELF environments for prolonged periods of time.
Studies of human breast cancer cells and some animal studies show that ELF is likely to be a risk factor for breast cancer.
There is supporting evidence for a link between breast cancer and exposure to ELF that comes from cell and animal studies, as well as studies of human breast cancers.
Alzheimer’s disease is a disease of the nervous system. There is strong evidence that long term exposure to ELF is a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease.
There is little doubt that electromagnetic fields emitted by cell phones and cell phone use affect electrical activity of the brain.
Changes in the way in which the brain and nervous system react depend very much on the specific exposures.
The consequence of prolonged exposures to children, whose nervous systems continue to develop until late adolescence, is unknown at this time. This could have serious implications to adult health and functioning in society if years of exposure of the young to both ELF and RF result in diminished capacity for thinking, judgment, memory, learning, and control over behavior. Most studies only look at short-term effects, so the long-term consequences of exposures are not known.
The effects of long-term exposure to wireless technologies including emissions from cell phones and other personal devices, and from whole-body exposure to RF transmissions from cell towers and antennas is simply not known yet with certainty. However, the body of evidence at hand suggests that bioeffects and health impacts can and do occur at exquisitely low exposure levels: levels that can be thousands of times below public safety limits.
Both ELF and RF exposures can be considered genotoxic (will damage DNA) under certain conditions of exposure, including exposure levels that are lower than existing safety limits.
Very low-level ELF and RF exposures can cause cells to produce stress proteins, meaning that the cell recognizes ELF and RF exposures as harmful. This is another important way in which scientists have documented that ELF and RF exposures can be harmful, and it happens at levels far below the existing public safety standards.
There is substantial evidence that ELF and RF can cause inflammatory reactions, allergy reactions and change normal immune function at levels allowed by current public safety standards.
Oxidative stress through the action of free radical damage to DNA is a plausible biological mechanism for cancer and diseases that involve damage from ELF to the central nervous system.
Medical conditions are successfully treated using EMFs at levels below current public safety standards, proving another way that the body recognizes and responds to low-intensity EMF signals. Otherwise, these medical treatments could not work. The FDA has approved EMFs medical treatment devices, so is clearly aware of this paradox
No one would recommend that drugs used in medical treatments and prevention of disease be randomly given to the public, especially to children. Yet, random and involuntary exposures to EMFs occur all the time in daily life.
V. CONCLUSIONS
• We cannot afford ‘business as usual” any longer. It is time that planning for new power lines and for new homes, schools and other habitable spaces around them is done with routine provision for low-ELF environments . The business-as-usual deployment of new wireless technologies is likely to be risky and harder to change if society does not make some educated decisions about limits soon. Research must continue to define what levels of RF related to new wireless technologies are acceptable; but more research should not prevent or delay substantive changes today that might save money, lives and societal disruption tomorrow.
• New regulatory limits for ELF are warranted. ELF limits should be set below those exposure levels that have been linked in childhood leukemia studies to increased risk of disease, plus an additional safety factor. It is no longer acceptable to build new power lines and electrical facilities that place people in ELF environments that have been determined to be risky (at levels generally at 2 mG and above).
Monday, February 11, 2008
Pregnant Mothers, Can Reduce E Smog Radiation
After reviewing more than 2000 research reports the Bioinitiative Group of scientists advise reducing E smog pollution from mobile phone and WiFi and other sources during pregnancy. There is a general agreement about this. It is accepted that in addition to the present evidence protection of the pregnant and new born is beyond question. Only those sites regulated by the telecommunication industry deny this. Though mainly they avoid bringing this question into view. And even they are advising caution. The European Environmental agency advises caution openly, the American Environmental Protection Agency EPA does as well, but only when asked.
Caution is necessary. DNA strands are broken and cell membranes weakened when radiated by small amounts of microwave radiation far less than the allowed level which is based on average people. The child in the uterus is growing rapidly and its cells are mosdt vulnerable when they are multiplying and specializing to create a healthy well formed infant.
Electromagnetic fields, particularly their magnetic component go through brick walls and certainly can affect the baby inside. It is important to realize that we must take into account radiation especially extreme low frequency radiation that is accepted by present allowed standards. These standards were created before WIFI, mobiles(cell phones) computers were multiplying . And their fields overlapping each other to create the dense though invisible soup of radiation we call e smog.
You have a choice to make. It is important for your child. Most mothers reduce alcohol intake, and smoking since it is proven to affect their child’s future. Reducing microwave exposure is also necessary. (see the Bioinitiative Report at www.bioinitiative.org). As with drinking and smoking during pregnancy the effects on your child can come later in life.
The telecommunication lobby has placed ‘neutral’ sites on the web that will assure you that radiation from phones, wifi, wireless, home phones etc., has not been proven harmful. Before legal action against the tobacco industry cigarette smoking was as common as cell phone talking. If so many smoke, who can change that? “All the others do it why can’t I”, say our children. Powerful public campaigns have reduced smoking! Labeling mobiles as dangerous to pregnant mothers and children will help and is now being considered by govenrment authorities
I write this because I have studied this microwave problem for many years. I am a medical doctor now retired. I have worked at MIT, NASA, and been a Assistant Clinical Professor at
I am concerned! It is wrong that people are not warned so they know the risks and can make informed choices. You can reduce the risk to your unborn child.
Preparing your home for the baby begins when you learn you are pregnant. Then the baby’s cells are multiplying fastest and the DNA is most vulnerable. In life we con only do the best we can. We need to consider what we can do to reduce radiation risk.. It is not possible in our civilization to reduce it completely but here are a few suggestions.
(1) To reduce mobile use.
Send a group notice to all those on your address list giving them your home phone/office numbers. Put on your mobile your hard line number and automatically forward the calls to your wired phone. Do not use home phones that are not wired, they are worse than mobiles. It is a worthwhile investment!
(2) Get rid of WiFi if you have it. Wire up your computer, fax, printer. The cables are not expensive, if you can use glass fiber cables that are easily installed and hidden.
(3) Check out your neighbors WiFi by finding where you can use your computer wireless when your own wireless system is turned off. Notice the area where neighbor WiFi penetrates most and avoid sleeping or sitting there over longer periods of time. When planning where the newborn shall sleep remember to consider lowest possible radiation. Talk to your neighbor who uses WIFI.
When your baby is born avoid wireless baby monitors, they may seem harmless. They pollute the child’s room. When baby sleeps in the parents room keep mobiles in another room. Certainly do not have a DECT wirless phone nearbye. They radiate even when turned off.(4) All computers also radiate. In your home work space reduce computer exposure as much as you can. Move away from the work station tower. Buying a separate keyboard keeping allows you to distance yourself from laptops radiation
(5)Add to your computer the software program Computer-Clear (www. Computer-Clear.com) This does not reduce the radiation but adds a signal in the computers field that specifically helps your immune system resist WIFi and radiation effects from your computer and other sources within 2 meters from your computer. Every reduction is important.
(5) A healthy diet increases your body’s resistance.
(6) Avoid Hot Spots i.e., public places, hotels, libraries, schools where WiFi is installed ‘for customer convenience’ When in a hot spot be sensitive to the radiation many people can feel it. Get out as soon as you can. Your pregnant body has the capacity to identify these fields if you pay attention. Get to know the your signals.
(7) Do what you can to keep out of the range of mobile (cell) transmitters. Learn to identify them. They are often hidden. There are companies who specialize in hiding mobile transmitters! Make games with your children: who can find the most transmitters. They will be less likely to insist on their own cell phone.
(8) In most cities there are groups who can informed you about the local microwave towers and relay stations and help you to prevent their being placed near your home..
(9) Do not use microwave ovens. They change the proteins of the food cooked so they are not only less healthy but can be harmful. When your baby is born avoid wireless baby monitors, they may seem harmless. They pollute the child’s room. Use wired monitors
(10) Keep informed. Join others in expressing concern and taking community action.
The website www.computer-clear.com will provide links and newsletters to keep you up to date. This blog will also contain useful news and you can comment and ask questions.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
The Bioinitiative Report's press release
BioInitiative Report:
A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard
for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)
A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard
for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)
Each of the links below opens a PDF file in a new browser window. When you are done with a particular file, closing the window will bring you back to this page.
August 31, 2007 - Serious Public Health Concerns Raised Over Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) from Powerlines and Cell Phones. (pdf) (html)
An international working group of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals (The BioInitiative Working Group) has released its report on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and health. They document serious scientific concerns about current limits regulating how much EMF is allowable from power lines, cell phones, and many other sources of EMF exposure in daily life.
The report concludes the existing standards for public safety are inadequate to protect public health.
Warren's comment
This report is not spin, it is based on study of at least 2000 scientific reports.
The study gives all these reports and many more a voice loud enough I hope to wake up governments and those who have the power to change the standards governing the exposure of the majority of Earth's human population to radiation pollution.
Just like global warming threatens all life so does too much radiation. The danger has been reported, the need for new standards is accepted by the majority of scientists in this field.
The lobbies are working to protect industry, jobs, their quarterly financial reports. They are concerned about class action since many have no insurance coverage. It has been refused. The asbestos industry is still paying for the disease it produced
Many supporting voters can outweigh a few rich supporting lobbies and the telecom and computer industries' wish to avoid the costs and uncertainties of changing their products so they do not cause illness.
The new collective voice from the science community speaks loudly. Spread the awareness of what is being said...This is the only way to create the necessity that allows governments to create costly change
Full report available at: www.bioinitiative.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)